Hello, On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:37:23AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:07:18AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > 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. > > The requirements haven't changed. In fact, there is no movement on this > front at all ;-) > > But you have a point there: just matching everything below the top level > directory (so you'd have to pass "*/bin" instead of "bin" for the > original use case), would be both more intuitive *and* more generic...
OK. I'll change the pattern matching behaviour shortly. Regards, scolobb
