Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:16:49 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch: chown() preparation for symlinks
In-Reply-To: <39572B05.5CD0DF5A@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000626151341.7682E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> As I can see, all the complexity there is for the case when _chmod()
> fails, for root directories and device files. So the performance loss
> should be pretty small for real applications.

The complexity will come into play each time _chmod fails, i.e. for each 
missing file.

> BTW, should chown() succeed for those root directories and device
> files?

I don't know.  That's why I asked if we need this; I don't have a 
definitive answer.

Devices seem especially questionable.  As for root directories, I doubt 
that a Unix program would ever want to call chown on it.