Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 2/22/2008 6:09 AM:
> |> I wonder if we would have much luck proposing a patch to the Linux kernel
> |> folks to do just that?
> |
> | Do you see another errno symbol name that makes sense?
> | I think that ENOTDIR makes the most
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you see another errno symbol name that makes sense?
ENOTSUP?
James.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 2/22/2008 6:09 AM:
|> I wonder if we would have much luck proposing a patch to the Linux kernel
|> folks to do just that?
|
| Do you see another errno symbol name that makes sense?
| I think that ENOTDIR makes the most sen
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote the aardvark along those lines, and it was rejected in yesterday's
> meeting of the Austin Group. They argued that Linux is allowed to fail to
> follow symlink-to-dir/ in the rename and rmdir case, but only if it
> returns a different errno than ENOT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 1/28/2008 6:28 AM:
| According to Geoff Clare on 1/28/2008 2:57 AM:
| |>
| |> My strict reading of the current wording in draft 4 does not permit
| Linux'
| |> behavior (even though it is more useful, in my opinion), since t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Geoff Clare on 1/28/2008 2:57 AM:
|>
|> My strict reading of the current wording in draft 4 does not permit Linux'
|> behavior (even though it is more useful, in my opinion), since the
|> trailing slash on B/ means that the old argument n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I know that draft 4 added some clarification on rename(2) (and mv(1))
behavior on path resolution. However, there is still an ambiguous
situation, which I don't see documented, and I would like some consensus
before writing an aardvark. This issue w
