Subject: Re: chmod & symlink broken in 1.6
To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
From: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/30/2002 07:52:27
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Andrew Brown wrote:

# gee...that's strange.  that's the way that *every other unix system
# does it*.

Mea culpa -- I don't have an *every other unix system* to check on;
I naturally assumed we were relatively compliant with said other systems.

Truly sorry; can someone help me get this foot from my mouth?
To Ben Harris:  Thanks for the POSIX clarification.  It's been too long
since I've seen that spec...

# >The other system calls traversing make a modicum of sense; however,
# >I believe the extensions for symperm allow for some very clever
# >filesystem manipulations!
#
# clever, perhaps.  fascinating, even.  but you can't call them the
# "most correct and only way to do things".

Not only, and not the only correct way, certainly!

I'm actually surprised that other unices handle link(2) differently
considering what link(2) describes itself to do.

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD:  For IQs higher than 120.