Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to Jim Meyering on 2/22/2008 6:09 AM: > |> 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. > > The POSIX folks argued that ENOTDIR is not appropriate, since in _most_ > contexts, symlink-to-dir/ (with the trailing slash) is indeed a directory > according to the pathname resolution rules - it is only when you omit the > trailing slash that it is not a directory; unfortunately, rename and rmdir > have different semantics when you remove the trailing slash. But they > also agreed that POSIX allows implementations to add additional > restrictions on path resolution, and that as long as Linux does not > violate the semantics of their interpretation of ENOTDIR (ie. uses a > different errno, to make it clear that this is an intentional and addition > implementation restriction of Linux), then the intuitive behavior is > permissible as one of those implementation restrictions. ENOTSUP sounds > reasonable, otherwise I think we'd have to invent a new one, maybe ESLASH > "trailing slash on symlink"?
Oh! ENOTSUP sounds ok. That's probably easier than inventing, even if ESLASH is more evocative. For some reason I interpreted Geoff's words as saying the alternate errno symbol had to be one of the ones already listed in the ERRORS section. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
