Date:	Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:16:49 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Patch: chown() preparation for symlinks
In-Reply-To:	<39572B05.5CD0DF5A@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000626151341.7682E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> As I can see, all the complexity there is for the case when _chmod()
> fails, for root directories and device files. So the performance loss
> should be pretty small for real applications.

The complexity will come into play each time _chmod fails, i.e. for each 
missing file.

> BTW, should chown() succeed for those root directories and device
> files?

I don't know.  That's why I asked if we need this; I don't have a 
definitive answer.

Devices seem especially questionable.  As for root directories, I doubt 
that a Unix program would ever want to call chown on it.

- Raw text -