> > 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
> 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
>
On Oct 12 06:58, Eric Blake wrote:
> I see the following bugs:
>
> $ ./foo // # should fail with EEXIST, not EROFS; no Windows call made
> //: 30 Read-only file system
> $ strace ./foo // | grep -B3 mkdir
>65 18986 [main] foo 3788 build_fh_pc: fh 0x6115AE1C
>34 19020 [main] foo 3788
3 matches
Mail list logo
