Jim Meyering wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Paul Eggert wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> It shouldn't be hard. > >> Just run a little perl snippet to determine what rename() does, > >> and base the expected results on that. > > > > A problem exists with configure testing for kernel behavior and then > > Whoops. Stop right there ;-) > We're talking about the test suite performing a test > of kernel behavior, so that it (the test suite for mv) > knows which rename() semantics are in effect.
Oops. I got out of sync reading the commentary and thought this was about configuring behavior of 'mv' and not testing the behavior. Now I feel foolish for having said all of that. I will get some sleep now. But just in case there is a suggestion to configure test for kernel behavior and then freeze it into the code then I am ready with my refutation! :-) Bob _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
