Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:27:31 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: another manifestation of the .. bug
Message-ID: <20051025132731.GX27476@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <435E2E2B DOT 9090306 AT byu DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <435E2E2B.9090306@byu.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i

On Oct 25 07:07, Eric Blake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> The fact that cygwin incorrectly flattens /name/../ to / in pathname
> resolution without first resolving name is triggering a failure in a new
> test recently added to the coreutils testsuite.
> 
> mkdir -p dir/.. && test -d dir
> 
> should always succeed when dir did not exist beforehand, but because
> cygwin is flattening stat("dir/..") into stat(".") rather than failing
> with the required ENOENT when dir does not yet exist, mkdir does not go on
> to create dir.  I can work around this issue in coreutils by making mkdir
> - -p never use its initial stat() to short-circuit directory creation, but
> this will penalize normal usage because it will force calling mkdir for
> every name in the chain even when the ultimate directory already exists.
> I would much rather see a fix in cygwin so that coreutils would work out
> of the box in this case.
> 
> Yes, I know, http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#SHTDI.  And yes, I realize that
> such a change, if it is to ever happen, would be post-1.5.19, because of
> its potential impact.

And I really can't see how "one testcase fails because Cygwin allows
something which should fail according to POSIX" qualifies for "coreutils
doesn't work out of the box on Cygwin".  Does the coreutils testsuite
not allow per-target XFAILs?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/