Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I am torn about this. On the one hand, a simple single test for this
> condition is useful. However, EEXIST and ENOTEMPTY just don't sound like
> the same thing, so having one macro that checks for both doesn't make
> sense. Does anybody have a strong opinion one way or the other?
If ENOTEMPTY can _only_ be returned by rmdir on a non-empty dir, and if rmdir
can return EEXIST _only_ if the directory isn't empty, then of course it makes
sense to combine the tests, and Joe's patch is correct. Otherwise, the
apr_dir_remove implementation should convert EEXIST to ENOTEMPTY ona
per-platform basis.
We definitely have to do something so that users don't have to check for both
EEXIST and ENOTEMPTY after trying to remove a dir; after all, APR is supposed to
hide platform differences. This situation is analogous to the APR_ENOENT vs.
APR_ENOTDIR one on Windows, which we solved by having APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTDIR
chaeck one of the same codes as APR_STATUS_IS_ENOENT.
Brane
>
> Ryan
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > On some platforms rmdir(2) fails with EEXIST rather than ENOTEMPTY
> when
> > trying to delete a non-empty directory; in fact POSIX specifies that
> > both EEXIST and ENOTEMPTY are allowed for this case.
> >
> > The test_removeall_fail() test uses APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTEMPTY() for
> this
> > case. Is it okay to extend APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTEMPTY to return true
> for
> > EEXIST for this case (as below), or should the test be changed?
> >
> > --- include/apr_errno.h 10 Nov 2002 08:35:16 -0000 1.101
> > +++ include/apr_errno.h 15 Nov 2002 14:02:55 -0000
> > @@ -1202,7 +1202,8 @@
> > /** cross device link */
> > #define APR_STATUS_IS_EXDEV(s) ((s) == APR_EXDEV)
> > /** Directory Not Empty */
> > -#define APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTEMPTY(s) ((s) == APR_ENOTEMPTY)
> > +#define APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTEMPTY(s) ((s) == APR_ENOTEMPTY \
> > + (s) == APR_EEXIST)
> >
> > #endif /* !def OS2 || WIN32 */
