* Tue 2008-01-08 Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> A demonstration: >> >> mkdir cache/temp >> mkdir cache/temp >> mkdir: cannot create directory `cache/tmp': File exists > > I presume it wasn't "mkdir" that changed "temp" to "tmp" > >> Suggestion: >> >> Perhaps the "File" is not the best description in this case. >> Please consider saying "Directory exists" if the item is directory. > > Thanks, but "File exists" is just the English version of the > strerror(EEXIST) string from the C library.
"Target exists" would be more generic if message is based on the EEXIST error code. > For one thing, in discussing file system objects, "file" is often > used to refer to a generic object, be it symlink, block device, > regular file, directory, etc. But that's not the real issue. > > Also, what about when the preexisting thing is a regular file: > > touch f && mkdir f > > or a symlink: > > ln -s . f && mkdir f > > Should mkdir have to perform an additional lstat so that > it can include the type of the preexisting file system "object" > when the mkdir functions fails with EEXIST? I'd welcome this. When error condition occures, it's a perfect place to provide more information. The information is not necessarily displayed to user, but stored to a log file, so when person looks at the logs later, he can get detailled view of the problem. I'd estimate that 90% of the cases the messages differentiating: - File - Directory - Symlink - "Other" Would suffice in the error messages. > I'm inclined to say no, but there is precedent for examining the file > type. The prompt you see when using rm's -i tells you about the type > of the file it might remove. Jari -- Welcome to FOSS revolution: we fix and modify until it shines _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
