Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Regarding your conceptually separate change that adds the check > for fts_close failure, you're welcome to add it back, especially > if you can come up with a test case that triggers it.
Those changes aren't needed any more, since the programs are about to exit anyway. They were needed only because yesterday's code sometimes accessed the working directory even after fts_close was called. It no longer does this, so there's no longer any need to check the return values from fts_close. I suppose we could even remove the calls to fts_close. That'd make the programs a bit smaller and faster, at a slight cost to conceptual cleanliness. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
