I forwarded the bug report to bo...@lists.boost.org [1] and this is the response: "as designed". See below and let me know if that answer is sufficient to close the bug.
Thanks, -Steve [1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/01/160891.php ----- Forwarded message from Beman Dawes <bda...@acm.org> ----- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:17:06 -0500 From: Beman Dawes <bda...@acm.org> To: boost <bo...@lists.boost.org> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Filesystem: basename function is not compatible with POSIX; potential for path-related security issues On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Steve M. Robbins <st...@sumost.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > I got the following report [1] for Boost.Filesystem from a Debian > user. Before entering into trac, I thought I'd ask whether this > deviation from POSIX is by design or is a bug. > > > Thanks, > -Steve > P.S. The original report is based on Boost 1.40, but I > verified the same behaviour on Boost 1.41. > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=565504 > > ----- Forwarded message from Roger Leigh <rle...@debian.org> ----- > > Package: libboost-filesystem1.40.0 > Version: 1.40.0-5 > Severity: important > > The basename function is not compatible with the POSIX function by the > same name... > Right. That's part of the reason why boost::filesystem::basename() is deprecated. Use path::filename() if you want the POSIX functionality. Use path::stem() if you want the old boost::filesystem::basename() functionality. Use path::extension() if you want the extension. --Beman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost ----- End forwarded message -----
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
