From:	"Andrew Cottrell" <AndrewCottrell AT swiftdsl DOT com DOT au>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Cc:	"'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	RE: inode problem in `rm'
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:45:59 +1000
Message-ID:	<000601c360ae$2ab29af0$0101a8c0@acp42g>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-reply-to:	<3F3803CD.27754CB4@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
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

> I've never seen this problem on Windows '98 SE, so I believe 
> it's 2k/XP-specific. I'm not going to be able to produce an 
> update for fileutils 4.1 anytime in the next two weeks - I 
> have no spare time for that.
> 
> Andrew: Do you have any spare time? If so, could upload a new 
> version of fileutils 4.1 with this check #ifdef'd out. I seem 
> to remember that you did this once before.
I will be looking at this later tonight for an hour or two and hopefully be
able to get a patch or get narrow the problem down to a very small set of
possible funtions before the weekend.

> > At the very least put filutils 4.0 back in the current directory, 
> > since it's rm works.
> 
> If someone would like to support fileutils 4.0, then please 
> do. But I have no time for maintaining it. (I barely have any 
> time for DJGPP these days.)
I take two steps back on this one.

Andrew

- Raw text -