Date:	Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:34:40 +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:	<3957C1E5.DFC7F995@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000627153406.19259I-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:

> > > BTW, should chown() succeed for those root directories and device
> > > files?
> 
> > Devices seem especially questionable.  As for root directories, I doubt
> > that a Unix program would ever want to call chown on it.
> 
> Devices do have owners and they can be freely changed in unix; so I see
> it as a bug in DJGPP. I'm not sure about / directory there. 
> 
> What's the best way to fix device handling? Make __file_exists() recognize
> devices too?

If we want chown to support devices and root directories, you might
as well use your original code with access instead of __file_exists.
It doesn't make sense to add complexity to __file_exists just to make
a no-op function such as chown be marginally simpler.

- Raw text -