Hi,
sorry if I'm bringing up a point that was already denied, but I have to
admit that reading through that entire discussion is totally tiresome …
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:14:24PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
I think the current implementation where only relative paths are
allowed for
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to simply let the user chose what to do?
I. e. forbid absolute paths by default and only if the
--i-know-what-i-am-doing-and-really-need-absolute-paths-please
option is given accept absolute
Hi again,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to simply let the user chose what to do?
I. e. forbid absolute paths by default and only if the
--i-know-what-i-am-doing-and-really-need-absolute-paths-please
option is given accept
Today kevin brintnall wrote:
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 01:14:24PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
I think the current implementation where only relative paths are
allowed for remote access is fine, since this provides a measure
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
Hi again,
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:36:42AM +0200, Florian Forster wrote:
Wouldn't it be *much* simpler to simply let the user chose what to do?
I. e. forbid absolute paths by default and only if the
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
Hi Tobi,
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names
are
resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
Hi Benny,
Thanks for your feedback!
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path
Hi Benny,
On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 02:22:40AM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
Am 04.10.2009 00:46, schrieb Sebastian Harl:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:54:53PM +0200, Benny Baumann wrote:
Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
When talking to a local daemon
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
existing solutions (as requested by Tobi).
However, when talking to a remote daemon, absolute path names are not allowed,
since path name
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
existing solutions (as requested by Tobi).
However, when talking to a remote daemon, absolute path
Hi,
Am 03.10.2009 23:36, schrieb Tobias Oetiker:
Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
existing solutions (as requested by Tobi).
Hi Tobi,
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names are
resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
existing solutions (as requested by
12 matches
Mail list logo
