John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Sunday 10 April 2005 18:21, Philip Martin wrote:
> [snip]
> > Should cat_local_file follow svn:special symbolic links?
>
> I suppose it should. I have a patch attached with all of the fixes,
> including support for resolving the symbolic link. However, I'm not sure
> it's entirely correct. Here's the relevant snippet:
> if (special)
> {
> svn_string_t *resolved_path;
> SVN_ERR (svn_io_read_link (&resolved_path, path, pool));
> path = resolved_path->data;
> }
>
> My question is do I have to now go back an get an access baton for the new
> resolved path? I suppose I should probably check the resolved path and
> make sure it's a file too, or can I be certain that it points to a file?
>
> Thanks for the help.
I am not sure that we want 'svn cat' to resolve symlinks at all. In
other user-visible output related to the special files (diff), the
contents of the repository-normal special file are used as is. This
has the advantage that it works in the face of symlinks pointing to
directories, broken symlinks, and platforms that don't support them at
all. Is there a clear consensus to actually resolve the symlinks when
cat'ing?
-Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 11 04:47:29 2005