Re: [PATCH] OS X Resource Fork and FinderType support

[Daniel Pittman]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, John Valdes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:13:41AM +0000, Dave Botsch wrote:

[...]

> 1) I don't think it's a good idea to reference the resource fork
>    directly using the ..namefork/rsrc path, as this is unsupported by
>    Apple and so subject to change at anytime (I think this path was
>    different in one of the early OS X beta's).  Instead, it would
>    probably be better to use supported (and documented ;) ) function
>    calls to access the forks.  As Daniel says, magic pathnames are
>    suboptimal...

Just to make things clear: I object to the magic pathname at the
cfengine script level, not at the implementation level. As long as it
works, I don't care how you implement (and support) it. ;)

[...]

> 2) I don't like the idea of having two copy: statements for one file
>    copy, one statement for each fork.

I also agree with this, but I couldn't think of a good way to make that
work without changing the syntax of copy: totally, so didn't bring it
up.

        Daniel

-- 
Listen to the victim, abused by the system 
The basis is racist, you know that we must face this. 
"It can't happen here". Oh yeah? 
"Take a look around at the cities and the towns."
        -- Pop Will Eat Itself, _Ich Bin Ein Auslander_ (Dos Dedos Mis Amigos)