Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I maintain that Linux is still
> POSIX-compliant by allowing rename("a", "b/") to succeed
It does appear that POSIX does not specify what should happen when you
do this:
mkdir new
cd new
touch a
mv a b/c
That is, if "b" does not exist, then rename("a", "b/c") is not
required to fail. That's very strange, but there's nothing in the
existing language that requires it to fail.
Hence you are right: rename("a", "b/") is not required to fail either.
I view this as a defect in POSIX.
> rename("a", "b/.") must fail since "b/." has a trailing dot component
I see no difference here. POSIX allows rename("a", "b/.") to succeed,
using the same logic as above.
> We should probably bring this up on the austin mailing list.
Yes, probably.
>> B. Have 'mv' do whatever 'rename' does, even if 'rename' does not
>> conform to POSIX.
> I also would favor (B). But we certainly need testsuite additions to
> ensure that we don't introduce future regressions against this decision.
OK, it'll be harder to test (B), since that relies on the test suite
knowing what rename() does. But I guess we can work around that.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
