On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:52:00PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:10:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > The chown(2) syscall > > returns intentionally always 0 if any of these conditions isn't met. > > That behavior seems rather "non-unix-like". If chown(2) fails to work > shouldn't return an error status, and possibly set ERRNO. Then chown(1) > could report a reasonable error message and exit status.
On FAT? Chown obviously can't succeed on FAT. So all 9x users will be out of luck? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@;cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
