Re: "tla build-config" question and suggestion
Thomas Lord <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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. 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users > > GNU arch home page: > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ > >