You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@AkihiroSuda do you know if \Program Files\Foo\Bar is considered a valid absolute path on Windows?
The advantage I see of using / for both Windows and Linux is that some content may not target a single platform, making it the responsibility of the unpacker to correctly interpret and convert the separator. As soon as the unpacker is doing some interpretation, it is allowing multiple forms for the same content which is against the design goals of continuity.
Activity
AkihiroSuda commentedon Jul 19, 2017
ptal @dmcgowan @stevvooe
stevvooe commentedon Jul 19, 2017
@AkihiroSuda I am not sure. What will work for windows?
AkihiroSuda commentedon Jul 20, 2017
So, a manifest will contain paths like
/Program Files/Foo/Bar.When it is applied on
C:, the path will be treated asC:\Program Files\Foo\Barstevvooe commentedon Jul 20, 2017
For manifests, they usually target a single platform, so having OS specific paths seems fine, which means we can avoid the conversion.
dmcgowan commentedon Jul 21, 2017
@AkihiroSuda do you know if
\Program Files\Foo\Baris considered a valid absolute path on Windows?The advantage I see of using
/for both Windows and Linux is that some content may not target a single platform, making it the responsibility of the unpacker to correctly interpret and convert the separator. As soon as the unpacker is doing some interpretation, it is allowing multiple forms for the same content which is against the design goals of continuity.stevvooe commentedon Jul 29, 2017
@tonistiigi PTAL
I think we should probably standardize on unix-style paths. In general, the manifests should be relocatable.
stevvooe commentedon Feb 2, 2018
@AkihiroSuda Are we good on this? What are the next steps?