Re: Possible spurious cycle detection with fts

2005-08-24 Thread Paul Eggert
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll hold off on the commit until Paul signs off on it. That looks good to me. Thanks for doing the merge. ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib

Re: Possible spurious cycle detection with fts

2005-08-24 Thread Jim Meyering
I've just committed that patch. Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Thanks for reporting that. With the following changes, ./gnulib-tool --test fts once again passes. 2005-08-24 Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] * modules/fcntl-safer: New module. * modules/fts

Re: Possible spurious cycle detection with fts

2005-08-10 Thread Jim Meyering
James Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch resolves my problem; thanks. Might I suggest though that you enhance the ChangeLog entry to describe the problem as well as the solution? This change requires some comment changes, too. I'll do both.

Re: Possible spurious cycle detection with fts

2005-08-09 Thread Jim Meyering
James Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I invoke fts_open() with the FTS_LOGICAL flag and do not set FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK, then fts_read() returns FTS_DC in ent-fts_info. However, with the same directory layout FTS_DC is not set if FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK is set. fts_options