Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Eric Blake asked: >>> Should the open-safer module depend on open? >> >> Yes, I think fcntl-safer should depend on 'open'. >> >> Jim, your opinion? > > Yes, most definitely. > There are a few other modules that may call open in such a way > (for writing, and with an arbitrary, caller-supplied file name) > that using the open module would improve portability/consistency. > > How about this: > [and with this I certainly don't need to add > that manual dependency on open for coreutils ] > >>From 5129caf614ceda1cbefc05aed249699a18bf8a77 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:40:36 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] make several modules depend on the "open" module > > This provides slightly increased consistency when opening-for-write > the name of a non-directory spelled with a trailing slash. > * modules/chdir-safer: Likewise. > * modules/chown: Likewise. > * modules/clean-temp: Likewise. > * modules/copy-file: Likewise. > * modules/fchdir: Likewise. > * modules/fcntl-safer: Likewise. > * modules/pipe: Likewise. > * modules/utime: Likewise. > Prompted by Eric Blake and Bruno Haible. ...
I've pushed that.
