Paul Eggert wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > > But the hard link case is much more complicated than before. And > > unfortunately does not cover the main case. > > I'm afraid it's the best we can do for ENOENT without issuing more > system calls. If link(a,b) fails with ENOENT, it could be a problem > with either a or b.
Oh well... > I understand your point about weird systems, but it's just a > diagnostic that we're trying to improve the quality of, so there's no > possible conformance issue here -- it's just a UI issue. So I'm still > inclined to try to do a better job with the hard-link diagnostic, even > if this sometimes means we might output a subset of the necessary info > on weird systems that we don't know about right now. Okay. Sounds good. Is this on a development branch? Or just something to remember to put in the main trunk once things are allowed to be a little unstable again? Bob _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
