On 4/12/06, Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Tai wrote: > > On 4/12/06, Pedro Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Apparently the extra dot in front of ./static is not an acceptable > >> character/path for tla. > >> > >> > > This is a weakness in the current code and shall be fixed. (added to > > the to do list...) > > > Sigh. It's a security feature. Note that it is there deliberately > (see the > call to `is_non_upwards_relative_path'). I strongly recommend that you > NOT CHANGE THAT BEHAVIOR. >
OK, once Tom has spoken, that's it. I will follow Tom's suggestion here. Pedro, please just use the path without the dot in front. > It would be a piss-poor feature of a revision control system if, just > checking > out a tree in the usual way without carefully scrutinizing the config file > first, stuff could be installed where you don't expect > >> So question one is, is a double dot (parent directory) an illegal path > >> for "tla build-config" ? > >> Question two is, why ./lfs/. does not work but ./lfs does work? > >> > >> > > OK, this is a case that is nice to be handled correctly as well. (a > > low-priority to do) > > > > > That's generous of you. I wouldn't bother. Why add code (i.e., > additional > sources of error, additional maintenance burden) just to give users the > option of typing a gratuitous no-op? > > -t As suggested by Tom as well. I will still go ahead and implement the check-config suggestion by Pedro, which is useful to have. -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
