Re: "tla build-config" question and suggestion

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]