Date:	Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:31:30 +0300 (EET DST)
From:	Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender:	<peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>, <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: A new W2K problem: djtar
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010916091216.7026B-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.30.0109240820450.20848-100000@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
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 Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > > from epunzip.c:
> > > 	epoutfile = open("/dev/null",
> > > 			 O_WRONLY | O_BINARY | O_CREAT | O_EXCL,

> > This open does not work on other Unix systems I tested.  The O_CREAT
> > isn't the problem it the O_EXCL - which fails if the specified file
> > exists.  This is a bug in epunzip (2 places).  I don't think we
> > should need O_CREAT either, but O_EXCL is the problem.

> I agree.

> Esa, is there any reason why I shouldn't remove O_EXCL from those two
> calls in epunzip.c?

None that I can think of.  I don't remember why I wrote them like
that, but now it doesn't make any sense to me why the null device
should be opened with either O_CREAT or O_EXCL, so I think they should
both be removed.

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/

- Raw text -