[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Is it intentional that unlink() on GNU/Hurd does not handle
> > > directories?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> How will this work for nodes that are both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is it intentional that unlink() on GNU/Hurd does not handle
> > directories?
>
> Yes.
How will this work for nodes that are both directories and files?
/Niels
_
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it intentional that unlink() on GNU/Hurd does not handle
> directories?
Yes.
> It seems that unlink() (a syscall from the looks) on GNU/Linux does
> handle directories. But POSIX doesn't say anything if unlink() must
> handle them.
Quite righ
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 04:36:50PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Is it intentional that unlink() on GNU/Hurd does not handle
> directories?
>
> It seems that unlink() (a syscall from the looks) on GNU/Linux does
> handle directories.
Hm. It does not seem this way to me--the man-page says:
Hm. It does not seem this way to me--the man-page says:
EISDIR pathname refers to a directory. (This is the non-POSIX
value returned by Linux since 2.1.132.)
And the revision-2.4 Linux that I'm running does indeed fail on
"unlink (x)" where x is a directory
Wo
Is it intentional that unlink() on GNU/Hurd does not handle
directories?
It seems that unlink() (a syscall from the looks) on GNU/Linux does
handle directories. But POSIX doesn't say anything if unlink() must
handle them.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EM
