On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, James Pearson wrote: > It is not wise to change the default behaviour of an application - with out > a very good reason. It is likely to cause more problems for existing users > than it "solves". > > Ever since the beginning of mkisofs, symlinks used as pathspecs have > been resolved (or followed), but symlinks found lower down a directory > structure are not resolved, unless the the -follow option is used. > > There are perfectly good reasons to treat the the two cases differently, so > I can't see having two options to choose is a problem.
So if something has a bug and doesn't work correctly, instead of fixing it you would have a "work as documented" option? I am burning tar files to CD for backups, because I don't have the time to hand check the behaviour of every item. To get symlinks followed in a list you would just change foo to foo/. to dereference the link at the list level, therefore eliminating the need for this to be the default behaviour, the need for yet another option, etc. -- -bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
