Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:34:40 +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: <3957C1E5.DFC7F995@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000627153406.19259I-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:

> > > BTW, should chown() succeed for those root directories and device
> > > files?
> 
> > Devices seem especially questionable.  As for root directories, I doubt
> > that a Unix program would ever want to call chown on it.
> 
> Devices do have owners and they can be freely changed in unix; so I see
> it as a bug in DJGPP. I'm not sure about / directory there. 
> 
> What's the best way to fix device handling? Make __file_exists() recognize
> devices too?

If we want chown to support devices and root directories, you might
as well use your original code with access instead of __file_exists.
It doesn't make sense to add complexity to __file_exists just to make
a no-op function such as chown be marginally simpler.