On 03/14/2012 04:07 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/13/2012 09:15 PM, Eric Blake wrote: >>> Also doesn't path_prefix() need the same adjustment, >>> so as to verify --relative-base in the same way? >> >> Yes, it looks like it. > > In fact, I found another bug, this time present also on Linux: > > $ realpath --relative-base=/ --relative-to=/ / > /
This may be a local issue? $ src/realpath --relative-base=/ --relative-to=/ / . > > when it should really output '.' (since '/' relative to itself is '.', > and ALL files are below '/' [except when '//' is special]). Likewise: > > $ realpath --relative-base=/usr/local --relative-to=/usr \ > /usr /usr/local/lib > /usr > /usr/local/lib > > when it should really output '/usr' (absolute, since it is not a child > of /usr/local) and 'local/lib' (which is a file below /usr/local, and an > output name relative to /usr). Well that was by design. I.E. --relative-base is a guard, which if either --relative-to or the specified paths go higher, an absolute name will be output. cheers, Pádraig.
