Re: [Gnu-arch-users] "tla build-config" question and suggestion

[Thomas Lord]

Andy Tai wrote:
> On 4/12/06, Pedro Perez <address@hidden> 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.

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 it.




>   
> > 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

>   
> > Here is a question/suggestion, should tla have a check-config command
> > that parses a config file and informs the user of any errors?
> >
> >     
>
> Yes, a good suggestion.  Again added to the to do list...
>
>   
> > --
> > Pedro Perez
> >
> >
> >     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
>