Hello, Thank you for the swift response!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote: > I do agree that it's counter-intuitive. Please note that the stow > functionality was mostly meant for the GNU system as a base for a -- > rather complex I'd say -- packaging system. > > The idea was that the first level after the stow directory was the > package, and we were matching against package's subdirectories. At the > time, I was actually in favor of a separate stowfs which were just > using common code for unionfs, but politics and other rather > meaningless reasons brought it into the way it is now. I see... It has never occurred to me that unionfs could be used in a packaging system :-) I wonder whether there is still the necessity to keep things as they are. I can see that the files in which you are mentioned as the author date back to 2005, so requirements might have changed in the meantime. Thomas, antrik, what do you think? Could it be acceptable to give the stow pattern matching feature a more intuitive face? > Hope this helps getting you in getting the code where you want it. Yes, sure :-) I finally understand why the stowing feature works in this way :-) Thank you for you explanation! Regards, scolobb
