[Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#6194: closed (pwd tracks logical paths through symlinks)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Fri, 14 May 2010 15:02:15 -0600
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#6194: bug: pwd
has caused the GNU bug report #6194,
regarding pwd tracks logical paths through symlinks
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
6194: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6194
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: bug: pwd Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 22:13:00 +0300

from:
info pwd

one get:
`pwd' prints the fully resolved name of the current directory.  That
is, all components of the printed name will be actual directory
names--none will be symbolic links.

When you try the following:
mkdir dirA dirB
cd dirA
ln -s ../dirB/ lnkB
cd lnkB
pwd


you get:
dirA/lnkB

where lnkB is obviously a symbolic link and not an actual directory name.

Best Regards,
Eran Shaham

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#6194: bug: pwd
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 14 May 2010 15:02:15 -0600
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
>
>
>
>
> eran shaham wrote:
> > the remark that was on
> > $ help pwd
> > pwd: pwd [-LP]
> > ...
> > It would save other people bothering you on that subject :-)
>
> Well, that documentation comes from 'bash' and we have no control over
> it here.  But 'help' is a bash command and so all of the documentation
> from it is about bash.  I don't think it needs more.
>
> The coreutils man page says:
>
>        NOTE:  your shell may have its own version of pwd, which usually super‐
>        sedes the version described here.  Please refer to your  shell’s  docu‐
>        mentation for details about the options it supports.
>
> And the info documentation says:
>
>      Because most shells have a built-in `pwd' command, using an
>   unadorned `pwd' in a script or interactively may get you different
>   functionality than that described here.
>
> So...  I think we are covered there! :-)
>
> Closing the bug ticket.
>
> Bob
>
>
> --- End Message ---