Fix opam config subst handling of absolute paths#6936
Open
NathanReb wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nathan Rebours <nathan.rebours@ocamlpro.com>
Signed-off-by: Nathan Rebours <nathan.rebours@ocamlpro.com>
cb9cb8e to
8449b7b
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #6925
This PR fixes
opam config substso that it treats absolute paths correctly.What this PR does not do is change the current
substbehaviour which is in my opinion a bit shady.opam config subst <path>will not rewrite<path>in place, substituting variables, as is described in the manual/command's--helpsection but instead expects to find a<path>.infile and will write the result of the substitution in<path>.The fact this hasn't been reported seem to indicate it is probably unused but I thought that fixing the absolute paths handling to be necessary since I touched this particular part of the code in #6910.