NetBSD-Bugs archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/45425: how to restore traditional unix behaviour for slashes on the end of pathnames
The following reply was made to PR kern/45425; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Holland <dholland-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: dholland%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
"Greg A. Woods" <woods%planix.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: kern/45425: how to restore traditional unix behaviour for
slashes on the end of pathnames
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:57:32 +0000
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 09:35:02PM +0000, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>> That doesn't work for e.g. mkdir.
>
> Of course not! :-)
>
> mkdir(2) creates a new directory, one that does not yet exist.
>
> Appending the "/." would only specify an existing directory.
>
> Trying to re-create an existing directory again is an error. :-)
Sure, but "mkdir foo/" is currently accepted.
> > That would drive me crazy, FWIW. And probably not just me. So it's not
> > exactly neutral.
>
> :-)
>
> I guess you didn't start out by using a traditional Unix. :-)
Perhaps not. I'm not old enough to have used anything more antique
than Ultrix and SunOS4 for serious purposes. I guess I've also tangled
with HP-UX 9.x, which (being SVR3) was conceptually far more dated
than even Ultrix, regardless of its official timestamp.
> I think the big problem here has come when people confuse the way the
> kernel interprets pathnames with the way some applications interpret
> pathnames some of the time, just as you do below.
I what?
> > Also, to avoid massive confusion you'd have to change globbing so that
> > "*/" behaves consistently,
>
> I must confess I have never, to the best of my memory, seen such a thing
> attempted.
>
> That's a shell issue anyway, not a kernel/namei issue. The kernel does
> no globbing.
Of course. But so what? The system's overall behavior should be
consistent.
> > and that in turn will break a bunch of
> > scripts that do things like "ls -d */ | ...".
>
> I've definitely never seen anything like that. I would think it was an
> error if I did see it.
Perhaps your experience isn't universal...
--
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index