GNU bug report logs - #77666
Question/discussion about `trusted-content'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: dominik.schrempf <at> gmail.com, 77666 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#77666: Question/discussion about `trusted-content'
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 12:05:39 +0300

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 19:06:59 -0500
> Cc: 77666 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> 
> More practically, should the docstring of `file-truename` mention that
> this is the same as the "real" file name on GNU/Linux?  I think that
> could help some users.  We could also add an index entry to the info
> manual.  Eli, WDYT?

I have nothing against mentioning 'realpath' in the doc string, if
that helps.  But note that file-truename is not an exact equivalent of
'realpath' in some marginal cases, even on Posix systems, for
arguments such as "~/foo" or an empty string.  So if we mention
'realpath', we should qualify that in some way.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.