> > On Oct 12 06:58, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > I see the following bugs:
> > >
> > > $ ./foo // # should fail with EEXIST, not EROFS; no Windows call made
> >
> > We had this already. There's no such thing as a "correct" order of error
> > messages. EROFS is as correct as EEXIST. If coreutils don't allow
> > different correct error messages to be returned, than coreutils is just
> > not foolproof enough. If this isn't a problem with coreutils, than the
> > better.
>
> OK, for //, you win - POSIX requires EROFS ONLY if the PARENT directory
> is read only, but the parent of // is //. Fortunately, mkdir -p never
> tries to do mkdir("//").
Followup - this behavior of returning EROFS breaks
mkdir -p //server/share in 5.90. Returning EEXIST really would be more
appropriate, but I will file an upstream bug to see whether they agree
that EROFS should be treated as a reason to call stat() to see if it
should have been EEXIST, rather than blindly failing on EROFS (this
affects non-cygwin systems, too, since you can mount writable
directories inside a read-only system).
--
Eric Blake
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
