On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 02:25:36PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > Note that I have some reservations about the current init_paths() and > path() code: > - their names seem to confusing. Maybe those should be init_base() and > base() or something similar; > - why does init_paths() copy all filenames in the emulation dir (at > least, that what it seems to do)? Try something silly like > "-L /home/../" to see what I mean ... > - and why does path() return the original filename if that file isn't > found in the emulation dir? That looks like a nice source for confusing > behavior or crashes, as that means an identical named file (but using > the regular root) will then be used.
Yeah, all that is a big mess and should be cleaned up. At the moment it is all too easy to get init_paths to recurse forever..
