Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote the aardvark along those lines, and it was rejected in yesterday's > meeting of the Austin Group. They argued that Linux is allowed to fail to > follow symlink-to-dir/ in the rename and rmdir case, but only if it > returns a different errno than ENOTDIR. > > https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=index.tpl&source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=11349
Yeah, I saw that exchange. Too bad. Thanks for trying. > I wonder if we would have much luck proposing a patch to the Linux kernel > folks to do just that? Do you see another errno symbol name that makes sense? I think that ENOTDIR makes the most sense from a semantic point of view. It might be a hard sell. > Otherwise, I'm afraid that coreutils mv and rmdir > will just have to remain non-POSIX-compliant on Linux because the > underlying syscall is violating semantics. That would be neither a problem nor anything new. I think of it as a feature: I try hard to maintain POSIX compliance, but not blindly, and certainly not when doing so would make the tools behave in such an unintuitive manner. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
