On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Lorenzo Campedelli wrote:
> I think you were referring to the small patch I sent. I actually gave up
> with it, as I don't see how to make it in a clean way.
> Honestly I found your suggestion to try to have it less special-casing
> vvfat a bit puzzling... vvfat is the only case in which there's any need
> to override realpath() behaviour, so I tried to make it as clear as
It makes the code ugly as hell, and it limits (unnecessarily) future
But since you made quite clear that you do not want to change your patch,
I will stop wasting my time.