Re: Bug in XSHd5 futimens

[Michael Kerrisk <mtk.lists@xxxxxxxxx>]

Geoff Clare wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk <mtk.lists@xxxxxx> wrote, on 18 May 2008:
> > > > > 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.
> > I see that the POSIX.1-2004 utimes() spec carries a similar mistake -- I 
> > guess that's where the working for utimenssat() came from.  Should I 
> > raise a separate Aardvark to get that fixed?
> That depends what you mean by "fixed".  Since utimes() is on the
> same page as futimens() and utimensat() in the revision, the fix
> for futimens() in TC1 will take care of it.
>
> The only reason I can see for raising a 2004-edition aardvark for
> utimes() is in order to generate an interpretation so that there
> is an official record of the problem in the current standard.
> Probably not worth the bother.
Yes, my meta-question was really something like: is it worth raising 
Aardvarks against the older standard?  Since I assume there won't be a 
TC3, of the older standard, your answer makes sense.

Cheers,

Michael