|
|
Hi,
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
> possible.
It makes the code ugly as hell, and it limits (unnecessarily) future
extensions.
But since you made quite clear that you do not want to change your patch,
I will stop wasting my time.
Ciao,
Dscho
|
|