From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10308111710.AA15447@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: inode problem in `rm'
To: eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:10:07 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <7458-Mon11Aug2003190113+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Aug 11, 2003 07:01:13 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> > Since our inodes are not very reliable, and the security issues under
> > a DJGPP port are not as big an issue, I believe we should remove this
> > code from the DJGPP ports.
> 
> I'd suggest to try debugging this before giving up, we do want our
> `stat' to produce reliable inodes on all supported platforms.

How about a working rm while we wait?