Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:57:09 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: RFD: remove(3) Message-ID: <20001219105709.A8286@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <00121910474600 DOT 28008 AT cygbert> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20001219104423 DOT 021aafc8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20001219104423.021aafc8@pop.ma.ultranet.com>; from lhall@rfk.com on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:44:35AM -0500 On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:44:35AM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: >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!;-) Sure. cgf