Paul Eggert writes ("Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux
readdir bug"):
> Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, readdir(3) is not the only part of POSIX that needs clarifying.
>
> I participated in the discussion that resulted in this new d_ino
> wording being added to POSIX, and my recollection is that the common
> behavior where readdir returns the inode number of the underlying
> mount point is now considered to be a bug,
_Why_ is it considered a bug ? Is it just that the members of the
relevant committee didn't understand what d_ino was for, and its
inherent limitations in the absence of a the corresponding dev ?
Were there any examples of applications that are broken near a
mountpoint with the traditional behaviour but correct with the new
behaviour ?
> If there's any further question about this it might help to track down
> the relevant Austin Group discussion.
Do you have a reference ?
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
