On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 07:01:59PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:52:00PM -0500, Jon LaBadie wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:10:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > The chown(2) syscall > > > returns intentionally always 0 if any of these conditions isn't met. > > > > That behavior seems rather "non-unix-like". If chown(2) fails to work > > shouldn't return an error status, and possibly set ERRNO. Then chown(1) > > could report a reasonable error message and exit status. > > On FAT? Chown obviously can't succeed on FAT. So all 9x users will be > out of luck?
I'm sure my lack of windows experience is causing me to not see something. If a chown(1) attempted on FAT resulted in an error message like "unsupported" on stderr and an exit status of 1, how would that leave 9x users out of luck? Why is it preferable to run chown and think it did something, as indicated by the success exit status, rather than be told it was not an appropriate call. -- Jon H. LaBadie [EMAIL PROTECTED] JG Computing 4455 Province Line Road (609) 252-0159 Princeton, NJ 08540-4322 (609) 683-7220 (fax) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
