Eric Blake wrote: > According to Eric Blake on 10/9/2009 6:28 AM: >>>>> nohup enums NOHUP_FAILURE=127 which clashes with EXIT_ENOENT? >>>> Required by POSIX to fail with 127 on internal failure (bummer). >> >> If POSIX agrees with my bug report, then we can blindly use EXIT_CANCELED >> in nohup; if not, I'm almost willing to make it a POSIXLY_CORRECT issue >> (return 125 unless we're complying with POSIX). > > Well, the Austin Group rejected it for the current version of POSIX, for > fear that returning something other than 127 would break existing > compliant applications. They did, however, recommend that I try again > with wording that permits either 125 or 127 in the next version of POSIX > (however many years down the road). > (look for item #165) > https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=index.tpl&source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=12935 > > [That meeting also discussed trailing slash cleanups, so maybe I'll have > to review all my recent work to see whether Linux behavior and gnulib > wrappers still fit in with the new wording on when ENOTDIR should be > returned, item #146.] > > So, how about this patch series? (I guess I should check whether this > change causes any testsuite failures, and if not, add some tests.)
Both look fine. Adding tests would make them perfect ;-)
