Christoph Berg <christoph.b...@credativ.de> writes:
>> Agreed so far as the script name goes. However, two out of three of these
>> scripts also print their input file names, and I'm suspicious that that
>> output is also gonna change in a VPATH build. I'm a little less inclined
>> to buy the claim that we're not losing anything if we suppress that :-(
> Well, patching this instance of $0 would fix a binary-package
> variation in practise. Of course there might be more issues waiting to
> come into effect, but I don't see why that would be an argument
> against fixing the current issue.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm not saying we should not fix
this problem. I'm saying that the proposed fix appears incomplete, which
means that (a) even if it solves your problem, it probably does not solve
related problems for other people; (b) since it's not clear why this
patch is apparently sufficient for you, I'd like to understand that in
some detail before deeming the problem solved; and (c) leaving instances
of the problematic code in our tree is just about guaranteed to mean
you'll have the same problem in future, when somebody either copies that
coding pattern into some new script or tweaks the way those existing
scripts are being used.
regards, tom lane
