This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [David Madore <madore@quatramaran.ens.fr>] libc/1638: O_NOLINK documented but not implemented
- To: tb at mit dot edu (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Subject: Re: [David Madore <madore@quatramaran.ens.fr>] libc/1638: O_NOLINK documented but not implemented
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Date: 09 Mar 2000 17:45:33 +0100
- Cc: <james at and dot org>, libc-alpha Mailinglist <libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, David Madore <madore at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>
- References: <u8put5x3xz.fsf@gromit.rhein-neckar.de> <nnsny130uy.fsf@code.and.org> <u1hhfeg5dad.fsf@pusey.mit.edu>
>>>>> Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
Th> James Antill <james@and.org> writes:
>> Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
>>
>> Well from the info explanation O_NOLINK == O_NOFOLLOW in Linux, so
>> glibc should probably define both (or maybe hurd could just change to
>> O_NOFOLLOW ?).
>> As far as I know, _IGNORE_CTTY and _NOTRANS aren't implemented in
>> Linux though.
Th> O_NOLINK and O_NOFOLLOW are different on the Hurd;
Th> libc/sysdeps/mach/hurd/fcntl.h says:
Th> # define O_NOLINK 0x0040 /* No name mappings on final component. */
Th> # define O_NOFOLLOW 0x00100000 /* Produce ENOENT if file is a symlink. */
Th> which are notably different.
Th> The original "bug report" does not sound like an actual confused user,
Th> however, but someone trolling for a political fight.
This isn't the first such report - and most users where confused since
they thought that Linux is also a GNU system.
My original question remains:
> The glibc manual means here really the Hurd. I'd
> like to change this and other occurences of "GNU system" to a phrase
> which doesn't cause os much confusion and bug reports.
>
> Hurd developers, what's a good and significant phrase? Should I call
> it "GNU/Hurd system" like RMS coined the "GNU/Linux system"?
What do you suggest?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de