On 2007-03-15 16:26:52 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote: [...] > I agree rm should report a failed "unlink", but if the "access" > returns "ESTALE", shouldn't that be taken as a hint that the > filename we are trying to access has been updated and that an > "unlink" should not be attempted (because the filename is invalid?)
> Just a thought that might reduce error messages while still being POSIX > compliant? I agree with you, and IMHO, one can even say the same thing after the unlink. Geoff Clare said in the austin-group-l list: | This one is debatable. Step 2c says that when "file" is a | directory, "For each entry contained in file, other than dot or | dot-dot, the four steps listed here (1 to 4) shall be taken with | the entry as if it were a file operand." | | If attempting to remove one of the names returned by readdir() | results in an ENOENT error, then it could be argued that the name | was not an "entry contained in file" at that point, and therefore | an implementation which ignores the error would still conform to | the requirements of step 2c. which was more or less my point of view. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
