Paul Eggert wrote: > On 01/11/11 12:38, Jim Meyering wrote: >> That looks fine. Thanks! > > OK, thanks, on further inspection I found one problem with it: > save-cwd needs to depend on getcwd, for portability to hosts > with inadequate getcwd implementations. So I pushed > this slightly-different patch with that in mind.
Oooh. Yes, the getcwd dependency is definitely required. Glad you caught that.
