Message140671
Hi,
thanks for the reply. I see your point with the legacy distutils.
> I hope that this explanation will let you see why I’m reluctant to
> change distutils: we don’t know what code we will break if we improve
> symlink handling. So, do you think adding a warning about symlink
> handling issues in the docs would be enough?
Given the constraints, yes, it would be good to have that warning in the docs. Even better would be a runtime hint like
Notice: gztar target will preserve symbolic links.
or
Notice: zip target will dereference symbolic links.
> For distutils2 however, compatibility concerns do not apply yet,
> so we’re free to fix and document symlink handling.
That would be very welcome. I am afraid I will not be able to contribute code anytime soon, but it would be great if the regular developers could keep an eye on this inconsistency. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-07-19 14:53:07 | fberger | set | recipients:
+ fberger, tarek, eric.araujo, alexis |
2011-07-19 14:53:07 | fberger | set | messageid: <1311087187.66.0.969711214393.issue12585@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-07-19 14:53:07 | fberger | link | issue12585 messages |
2011-07-19 14:53:06 | fberger | create | |
|