[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Jim Meyering
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:48:44 +0200

Eric Blake wrote:

> According to Eric Blake on 10/9/2009 6:28 AM:
>>>>> nohup enums NOHUP_FAILURE=127 which clashes with EXIT_ENOENT?
>>>> Required by POSIX to fail with 127 on internal failure (bummer).
>> If POSIX agrees with my bug report, then we can blindly use EXIT_CANCELED
>> in nohup; if not, I'm almost willing to make it a POSIXLY_CORRECT issue
>> (return 125 unless we're complying with POSIX).
> Well, the Austin Group rejected it for the current version of POSIX, for
> fear that returning something other than 127 would break existing
> compliant applications.  They did, however, recommend that I try again
> with wording that permits either 125 or 127 in the next version of POSIX
> (however many years down the road).
> (look for item #165)
> https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=index.tpl&source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=12935
> [That meeting also discussed trailing slash cleanups, so maybe I'll have
> to review all my recent work to see whether Linux behavior and gnulib
> wrappers still fit in with the new wording on when ENOTDIR should be
> returned, item #146.]
> So, how about this patch series?  (I guess I should check whether this
> change causes any testsuite failures, and if not, add some tests.)

Both look fine.
Adding tests would make them perfect ;-)

reply via email to

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