Re: UNIX Compatibility

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Don, 2011-05-26 at 08:07 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: 
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:30:39 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> 
> > Or take the "unlink a directory gives EPERM" example: why is it
> > specified with an errno that indicates that the user is not allowed to
> > remove it (and not that the sys-call is the wrong one).
> 
> Because on some old Unix's, it wasn't the wrong syscall...

Oh well, I'm probably too young for that ....

> RATIONALE
> 
> Unlinking a directory is restricted to the superuser in many historical
> implementations for reasons given in link() (see also rename()).
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html

So someone changes the semantics of the unlink() sys-call (obviously in
some compatible, standards-compliant way) as it no longer unlinks
directories but it is not possible to define the returned errno for
the new error case to something sane?

What did I miss?

Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/