[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] lstat/stat

From: Derek Robert Price
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] lstat/stat
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:30:41 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1

Jim Meyering wrote:

Derek Robert Price <address@hidden> wrote:
Did you have an opinion about my tweaks to stat.c?

Yes.  I liked it and have just made that change.  Thanks.
I also confirmed that Solaris5.9 still requires the
work-around code and added this comment:

 Also work around a deficiency in Solaris systems (up to at
 least Solaris5.9) regarding the semantics of `lstat ("symlink/", sbuf).'
 has this bug.

I just got a complaint from one of the other CVS developers that Sun likes to see wither the uname output (SunOS 5.9) or their marketing name (Solaris 9) when referring to various versions of their operating systems.

I chose Solaris 9 and included a patch. I've also included Mark's SunOS=>Solaris mapping, for the edification of any interested parties.

   * lib/lstat.c: Call a rose a rose (comment correction).

Index: lib/stat.c
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnulib/gnulib/lib/stat.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 stat.c
--- lib/stat.c  11 Jun 2003 08:50:33 -0000      1.7
+++ lib/stat.c  20 Jul 2003 12:24:06 -0000
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Work around the bug in some systems whereby stat/lstat succeeds when
   given the zero-length file name argument.  The stat/lstat from SunOS4.1.4
   has this bug.  Also work around a deficiency in Solaris systems (up to at
-   least Solaris5.9) regarding the semantics of `lstat ("symlink/", sbuf).'
+   least Solaris 9) regarding the semantics of `lstat ("symlink/", sbuf).'
   Copyright (C) 1997-2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

   This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify

Mark D. Baushke wrote:

"Solaris5.9" is a mistake in naming. It is mostly a Solaris branding
issue. What is in a name and a version number? Well, Sun seems to care
about Solaris versus SunOS branding...

Here is a mapping table for you to use.

      SunOS 2.x       == SunOS 2.x
      SunOS 3.x       == SunOS 3.x

Starting with 4.1.1B of SunOS we have the 'Solaris 1.0' release.

      SunOS 4.1.1B    == Solaris 1.0
      SunOS 4.1.2     == Solaris 1.0.1
      SunOS 4.1.3     == Solaris 1.1
      SunOS 4.1.3C    == Solaris 1.1C
      SunOS 4.1.3_U1  == Solaris 1.1.1
      SunOS 4.1.3_U1B == Solaris 1.1.1 B
      SunOS 4.1.4     == Solaris 1.1.2

The SunOS 5.x uname output maps to the Solaris 2.x numbers thru 2.6

      SunOS 5.0       == Solaris 2.0
      SunOS 5.1       == Solaris 2.1
      SunOS 5.2       == Solaris 2.2
      SunOS 5.3       == Solaris 2.3
      SunOS 5.4       == Solaris 2.4
      SunOS 5.5       == Solaris 2.5
      SunOS 5.5.1     == Solaris 2.5.1
      SunOS 5.6       == Solaris 2.6

After SunOS 5.6, they started number based on the second digit
      SunOS 5.7       == Solaris 7
      SunOS 5.8       == Solaris 8
      SunOS 5.9       == Solaris 9

Yes, it makes no sense, but Sun folks get huffy when you use their SunOS
uname output to map to their Solaris number incorrectly.



Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <>!
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail.

        - Abraham Maslow

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]