Archives
Archives
| From: | James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch: reject patches with relative paths | ||
| Date: | Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:32:03 | ||
| Message-Id: | m3tyhtrb7u.fsf@jhcloos.com | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] epatch: reject patches with relative paths by Mike Frysinger |
||
| 1 | >>>>> "MF" == Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> writes: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | MF> along those lines, we should start rejecting relative paths. we |
| 4 | MF> cant auto- skip the leading elements since relative paths could |
| 5 | MF> appear anywhere. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | You do not need .. or . in a path for it to be a relative path. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | :; diff -uNr a/foo b/foo |
| 10 | |
| 11 | generates a patch with relative paths. |
| 12 | |
| 13 | The warning needs to be more specific lest it cause undue confusion and |
| 14 | support load. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | -JimC |
| 17 | -- |
| 18 | James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |