On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 03:21:59PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote: > Why do people think that a realpath is always available?
Because the manual page doesn't say it isn't. > What is wrong with just extending using pwd? That won't handle . and .. and relative paths spanning symbolic links, which you may or may not want to see in the output, etc. > And maybe optionally stripping .. and . elements if wanted. The ODE make(1) as seen in CMU buildtools4 did this by hand, there's no reason we couldn't either, except someone would likely come along and use realpath(3) in place of it at a later date. That's what I did to ODE. > At least pwd doesn't break amd(8) pathnames. How does realpath _break_ amd(8) pathnames? I'm not very familiar with any functionality that would cause this. If realpath(3) gets broken, that sounds like we either need some new conditions in realpath(3), or we need to fix amd(8) paths. > It became nearly impossible to use amd(8) today just because of all that > realpath introduced breakage. To what end? More information is helpful. Thanks. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | C, MIPS, POSIX, UNIX, BSD, IRC Geek. http://www.FreeBSD.org | The Power to Serve Vote for me for FreeBSD core or the cute little bunny gets it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message