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 From: Corinna Vinschen Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:36:17 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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> <20001219105709 DOT A8286 AT redhat DOT com> In-Reply-To: <20001219105709.A8286@redhat.com> Subject: Re: RFD: remove(3) Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0012191936170F.28008@cygbert> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id NAA11023 On Tuesday 19 December 2000 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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. Ok. Corinna