On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 01:39:31PM +0100, Jean-Pierre André wrote: > Are the old names being removed from glibc ? > Currently I am using glibc 2.11 and they are present.
I'm having a bit of a problem understanding the bug fully, since it only manifests itself inside our build system, not on any of our test machines. As you say, the most recent glibc does include these symbols (if -D_BSD_SOURCE is defined, which is the case because you have AC_GNU_SOURCE). So I'll take this patch back for now. > Actually the name choice was intentional, because > they are used as argument to a function asking whether > read, write etc is allowed to the current user, leaving > to the function to identify whether this user is owner > of file, member of group, or other. > > So using the names for owner's permissions is deceptive. > I could use R_OK, W_OK etc, but in that list there is no > name for requesting the specific actions for a sticky > directory. I would have to add an extra argument and > forward it to the called functions. Isn't it better to define your own symbols for this? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
