Re: "chmod a+rwx A B" doesn't chmod A before chmoding B

[Paul Eggert]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:

> Regarding your conceptually separate change that adds the check
> for fts_close failure, you're welcome to add it back, especially
> if you can come up with a test case that triggers it.

Those changes aren't needed any more, since the programs are about to
exit anyway.  They were needed only because yesterday's code sometimes
accessed the working directory even after fts_close was called.  It no
longer does this, so there's no longer any need to check the return
values from fts_close.

I suppose we could even remove the calls to fts_close.  That'd make
the programs a bit smaller and faster, at a slight cost to conceptual
cleanliness.