Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001219104423.021aafc8@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:44:35 -0500
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: RFD: remove(3)
In-Reply-To: <00121910474600.28008@cygbert>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 04:47 AM 12/19/2000, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>The remove(3) call in newlib is implemented as a simple call to unlink(2).
>
>SUSv2/Linux/OpenBSD on the other hand define remove(3) as follows:
>
>   If path does not name a directory, remove(path) is equivalent to unlink(path). 
>   If path names a directory, remove(path) is equivalent to rmdir(path).
>
>I would plead to implement our own remove(3) call, overriding the newlib
>implementation. AFAICS, we can't change the newlib implementation because
>newlib doesn't know of rmdir(2) at all.
>
>Thoughts?



Do it!;-)



Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX