Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If any of you know of a system with file name resolution code that
> doesn't fail for a chain of 400 symlinks, or for which you get a
> different diagnostic than `Too many levels of symbolic links' (ELOOP),
> please provide details.
On Solaris 8 through
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If any of you know of a system with file name resolution code that
>> doesn't fail for a chain of 400 symlinks, or for which you get a
>> different diagnostic than `Too many levels of symbolic links' (ELOOP),
>>
I discovered a long-standing bug in fts.c yesterday:
2006-01-11 Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fts.c (fts_stat): When following a symlink-to-directory,
don't necessarily interpret stat-fails+lstat-succeeds as indicating
a dangling symlink. That can also happen at le
