Reuben Thomas wrote: > By the way, I note that the return value of chown is ignored where no > other return value is; is this an oversight, or is it really the case > that this is the one operation whose failure can be overlooked?
I think the rationalization is that depending on the type of the destination file system, the chown may be guaranteed to fail (FAT), in which case, your improved lower-level version could add a parameter to control whether chown failure is important.
