Message-Id: <200006252041.XAA24142@alpha.netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:43:51 +0200
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <395643BB.7109B0DA@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis
	on Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:39:07 +0200)
Subject: Re: Patch: chown() preparation for symlinks
References:  <395643BB DOT 7109B0DA AT softhome DOT net>
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
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:39:07 +0200
> From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> 
> This patch changes !__file_exists(...) to access(..., F_OK).
> access() will be converted to accept symlinks, and __file_exists()
> won't be. chown() works with this change with and without symlinks.

access does much more than just a simple call to _chmod inside
__file_exists.  In particular, it calls findfirst to support root
directories and devices.  Do we really need all that stuff for chown,
which is just a no-op?  Perhaps it is better to resolve symlinks
inside chown?