On 01/09/2014 07:19 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 1/9/14 12:42 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
>> Hi, I investigated this bug report:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987975
>> and found out that some of bash's builtins (source at the very least) do
>> not canonicalize
>> pathnames given as arg
Chet Ramey wrote:
> Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> > Hi, I investigated this bug report:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987975
> > and found out that some of bash's builtins (source at the very
> > least) do not canonicalize pathnames given as arguments (builtin
> > "open" is instead fed w
On 1/9/14 12:42 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> Hi, I investigated this bug report:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987975
> and found out that some of bash's builtins (source at the very least) do
> not canonicalize
> pathnames given as arguments (builtin "open" is instead fed with the pa
Hi, I investigated this bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987975
and found out that some of bash's builtins (source at the very least) do
not canonicalize
pathnames given as arguments (builtin "open" is instead fed with the
path - failing in the BZ case).
The builtin "cd" s
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 01:56:11PM +0800, lina wrote:
> Hi Bob, my fault, I didn't realize this was a wrong way to start a new
> conversation, by renaming the Subject and deleted everything inside. How
> could they figure out it is from that thread?
Email headers include a field called "In-Reply-T
