<<On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In anycase, I can't imagine that POSIX actually intended null > symlinks to act in any particular way The standard specifies precisely how pathname resolution is supposed to behave. FreeBSD should conform to the standard, even if some of the consequences are somewhat unexpected. (At least the semantics are consistent!) -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.c... Matt Dillon
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Bruce Evans
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Garrett Wollman
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Bakul Shah
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Garrett Wollman
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Andrey A. Chernov
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Garrett Wollman
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Matt Dillon
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Wa... Garrett Wollman
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Bruce Evans
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Matt Dillon
- Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: R... Bruce Evans