John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Robert Watson wrote this message on Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:38 +0000: >> So while I don't have opinions about the implementation details, I think >> what Ruslan is proposing is architecturally the right thing. How to handle >> the command line argument, I don't have an opinion, except that user >> surprise is bad, so a new argument with some compatibility and a warning is >> probably better than changing "-m". > > Why not detect etc as the last component of -m and print a nice little > warning, and then remove /etc from the path? (or adding .. if we end > up with an empty path).. and after a year or so, remove the warning > and the compat code... That's basically the direction I'm looking at right now. > I doubt people are doing something really crazy > like making foobarbaz a symlink to etc, and depending upon that.. If > they are, they get what the deserve... My concern is more people who have scripted solutions that include the -m argument, but I'm sure that we can make this work. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protectionReceived on Mon Mar 27 2006 - 17:51:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:54 UTC