Re: dpkg 220.127.116.11.1 bug
James Troup (J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk) wrote on 25 May 1998 15:55:
>> Maybe libc has been hacked for "compatibility" on x86 [ ... ]
>No. From chown(2):
>| In versions of Linux prior to 2.1.81 (and distinct from
>| 2.1.46), chown did not follow symbolic links. Since Linux
>| 2.1.81, chown does follow symbolic links, and there is a
>| new system call lchown that does not follow symbolic
>| links. Since Linux 2.1.86, this new call (that has the
>| same semantics as the old chown) has got the same syscall
>| number, and chown got the newly introduced number.
>I'm still convinced that the alpha kernel is wrong for not doing what
>the i386 & m68k kernels are doing.
I don't understand the syscall number issue. Does this mean that a
program that calls chown will in fact run lchown? This cannot be the
case, otherwise the new chown will be unavailable...
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com