At 04:39 PM 1/21/2003, Shankar Unni wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>It's not a completely intractable problem. I think that someone (Chris >>January?) provided a workaround at one point. "cygserver" could also >>provide a possible solution someday. > >Right. I went back and re-read those archives. Interesting problem. > >Now why was it important to do this "delayed remove" semantics? I.e. what (as alluded >to by Robert Collins) would be broken if unlink simply returned EPERM or something >like that if the file was busy? I didn't see any reference to that in the message >threads.
Forgive me. I didn't take the time to review the email archives for all the threads on this but if I recall correctly, the current behavior is meant to combat the "my script/program deletes the file/directory then tries to recreate it - why isn't the file/directory deleted when unlink() returns?" issue. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- 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/
