Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Ian Jackson
Paul Eggert writes ("Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug"): > Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Also, readdir(3) is not the only part of POSIX that needs clarifying. > > I participated in the discussion that resulted in this new d_ino > wording being added to

[bug #23798] Proposal to add some new free & open file formats to src/dircolors.hin

2008-07-08 Thread INVALID.NOREPLY
URL: Summary: Proposal to add some new free & open file formats to src/dircolors.hin Project: GNU Core Utilities Submitted by: jemm Submitted on: Tuesday 07/08/2008 at 10:34 Category:

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Jim Meyering
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering writes ("Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux > readdir bug"): >> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > That is all systems. All UN*X systems since the dawn of time have >> > behaved this way. >> >> Just because everyone

Re: is hard-coding the group name, "tty", portable enough for who -a?

2008-07-08 Thread Piotr Gackiewicz
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, James Youngman wrote: > How about just comparing the GID of the other user's terminal against > the GID of the terminal whose name would have been printed if we'd run > "tty"? Actually, my patch with checking terminals group against "tty" was based on permissions of "write" an

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Paul Eggert
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > _Why_ is it considered a bug ? Is it just that the members of the > relevant committee didn't understand what d_ino was for I don't think that is likely; the folks involved in that discussion list are cognizant of the issues. > Were there any examples o

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Phillip Susi
Jim Meyering wrote: Ultimately, neither POSIX nor any other official standard defines what is "right" for coreutils. POSIX usually serves as a fine reference, but I don't follow it blindly. In rare cases I've had a well-considered disagreement with some aspect of a standard, and I have implemen

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Jim Meyering
Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Ultimately, neither POSIX nor any other official standard defines what >> is "right" for coreutils. POSIX usually serves as a fine reference, but >> I don't follow it blindly. In rare cases I've had a well-considered >> disagreemen

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Phillip Susi
Jim Meyering wrote: The change I expect to implement does not going against POSIX. On the contrary, the standard actually says the current readdir behavior is buggy. See my previous reference to a quote from readdir's rationale. "Going against the standard behavior" means differing in behavior

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Jim Meyering
Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The new POSIX standard verbiage you > pointed out only _hints_ that that it is incorrect behavior, with no > justification for that position. >From what I've read, POSIX does not specify this. If you know of wording that is more precise, please post a quot

Re: making GNU ls -i (--inode) work around the linux readdir bug

2008-07-08 Thread Wayne Pollock
Jim Meyering wrote: Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The new POSIX standard verbiage you pointed out only _hints_ that that it is incorrect behavior, with no justification for that position. I know ls didn't use to work this (buggy!) way on old versions of Linux. I don't think it did o