From dev-return-62697-apmail-ant-dev-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org Thu Jan 06 23:24:30 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 14994 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2005 23:24:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2005 23:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 69295 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2005 23:24:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 69232 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2005 23:24:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 69219 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jan 2005 23:24:28 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from ajax-1.apache.org (HELO ajax.apache.org) (192.87.106.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:24:27 -0800 Received: from ajax.apache.org (ajax.apache.org [127.0.0.1]) by ajax.apache.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j06NOPE9008910 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:24:25 +0100 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by ajax.apache.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j06NOPab008908; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:24:25 +0100 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:24:25 +0100 Message-Id: <200501062324.j06NOPab008908@ajax.apache.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: dev@ant.apache.org Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32977] - Ant handles ".." in paths incorrectly X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32977 ------- Additional Comments From ddevienne@lgc.com 2005-01-07 00:24 ------- I see your point. Since you're merely testing for the existence of a file, that's unfortunate. But then, if webapps/wsrf was in the same dir as the build file, itself in the root dir, your proposed change would make the condition be true, when you expect it 3 directories down. Don't you also find this disturbing, that you pick up something that your build file explicitly and statically states should be 3 directories down (or up, depending...) and is in fact collocated? One way to deal with this would be to compute the actual filename the way you want prior to test it in the , using a small