It surely would not be conformant to Plan 9 systems, but to the protocol?
As far as I can read intro(5), it explicitly excludes slash as a valid
character for the Plan 9 OS, but it also explicitly states that the
protocol has no such restriction.
Be patient: I'm asking because this could be a
On Jan 30, 2015, at 10:59 , Giacomo Tesio giac...@tesio.it wrote:
It surely would not be conformant to Plan 9 systems, but to the protocol?
No. Joel has it right. Writing a server which allows / in names would mean that
the / you're slipping into a name wouldn't always be a directory
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Giacomo Tesio giac...@tesio.it wrote:
As far as I can read intro(5), it explicitly excludes slash as a valid
character for the Plan 9 OS, but it also explicitly states that the
protocol has no such restriction.
My reading is that a 9p2000 server might allow a
Well, I left the machine on its own and after slightly
less than an hour it offered a prompt with some more info,
I believe, so now it might be clearer to say what is wrong.
See prompt.png.
that's expected behavior /sys/lib/newuser will fix that.
the lengthy init was all venti.
- erik
Now, since the protocol does not restrict names (even if Plan 9 does it),
I'm wondering if setting the name to a full path starting from root could
be used to change atomically the directory of a file (given the write
permission on both original and target directory).
Obviously I'm not
Hi, I'm wondering about the validity of an interpretation of intro(5) and
stat(5) that could allow a server to atomically change the directory of a
file.
From intro(5) http://man.cat-v.org/9front/5/intro
The notation
string[s] (using a literal s character) is shorthand for
s[2] followed by s
