Re: dpkg 1.4.0.22.1 bug

[Carlos Carvalho <carlos@fisica.ufpr.br>]

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):
 >
 >| NOTES
 >|        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...

Carlos


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org