Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: {arch} directory

[Dustin Sallings]

On Wednesday, Sep 24, 2003, at 19:36 US/Pacific, Robert Anderson wrote:

> > dustin2wti:/tmp/temp/manual 585% ls -l "{arch}"
> > ls: {arch}: No such file or directory
> > dustin2wti:/tmp/temp/manual 586% tla tree-version
> > address@hidden/temp--temp--0.1
> >
> >         There's no visual cue, but the directory is handled by arch.
>
> Umm... huh?  tla tree-root will tell you if you're in a tree or not, if
> that's what you mean.
>
> The {arch} dirs mark the _roots_ of the trees.

	My point is that the {arch} directory as a visual cue to tell me I'm 
in a directory managed by arch is only helpful if I'm in the root.

	The point of the above session was to demonstrate that I might be in a 
directory handled by arch, but still not have a directory called {arch}.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________