Re: Version 2.1.70 ms-dos fs strange.

[Rogier Wolff]

Bill Hawes wrote:
> 
> Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > But filename.bak or FILENAME.BAK or *.BAK, etc, are not invalid names
> > under MS-DOS.
> > 
> > The relatively new behavior makes scripts that contain :
> >         rm -f *.bak
> > ... on a MS-DOS file-system fail because rm ignores ENOENT (only) when
> > using the (f)orce option. I can modify rm, but this is not the correct
> > fix.
> 
> Well, you can make a good argument that looking up an invalid filename
> should result in ENOENT.
> 
> Is this a change in behavior for msdos fs? If so, we probably should
> revert to the old behavior, unless someone has a good argument for
> returning EINVAL.

I tried reproducing Richards results, but I couldn't and noticed I was
running 2.0.x, and Richard was running 2.1.7x. 

I would still say that the filesystem (OS) has the right to return
"EINVAL" on invalid input. "*.bak" is an invalid filename on MSDOSfs.

					Roger.

-- 
** [e-mail] ** [phone] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ **
Florida -- A 39 year old construction worker woke up this morning when a
109-car freight train drove over him. According to the police the man was 
drunk. The man himself claims he slipped while walking the dog. 080897