Michael Kerrisk <mtk.lists@gmail.com> wrote, on 15 May 2008:
>
> Geoff Clare wrote:
> >Michael Kerrisk <michael.kerrisk@gmail.com> wrote, on 14 May 2008:
> >>@ page 969 line 32433 section futimens comment {utimensat-errs}
> >I agree that this change is needed. Since draft 5.1 has already been
> >produced, I suggest that we should take this as an aardvark against 5.1
> >(the page and line numbers are the same), to be addressed in TC1.
>
> Do I need to do anything to get that Aardvark moved to the TC1 queue?
You don't need to do anything. As per the minutes of yesterday's
teleconference, Andrew is going to create a new set of aardvarks for
the revision and yours will be the first entry.
> In passing, does anyone know what the rationale was for having two
> different permission errors (EACCES and EPERM) for utime() and utimes()
> (and thus now utimesat() and futimens())? Was this just standardization
> of existing practice, or is there another reason?
I'm fairly sure it was just existing practice.
--
Geoff Clare <g.clare@opengroup.org>
The Open Group, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading, RG1 1LX, England
|