"Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]" wrote:
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Wing <ben(a)666.com>
writes:
Ben> Michael, why are you making this so hard? *if* you're running in
Ben> place, and *if* you can't find the packages, and *if* there's a
Ben> valid tree parallel to the root, then use it. In your case, if
Ben> the tree found is not a valid package hierarchy, then it should
Ben> be ignored.
OK guys, I give up. Apparently both sides don't like what I do. Ben,
please finally get it into your head that the issues surrounding path
searching are *hard*, and there are very few changes that you can make
which won't screw some of the users. At least give someone else the
benefit of the expertise here, come by the hard way.
i believe you in general, but in this case i simply don't see why it's so
hard to add a last-resort fallback! the alternative in this case would be
no packages at all!
i hope this doesn't mean you are planning on doing nothing.
As for the *if*: I've gotten bashed plenty for the stat count path
searching incurs. This would bump it up forther.
Jeez ...
--
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
--
Ben
In order to save my hands, I am cutting back on my mail. I also write
as succinctly as possible -- please don't be offended. If you send me
mail, you _will_ get a response, but please be patient, especially for
XEmacs-related mail. If you need an immediate response and it is not
apparent in your message, please say so. Thanks for your understanding.
See also
http://www.666.com/ben/typing.html.