[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ENOENT (was Re: [PATCH] added --force-* options for conffile handling)

On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 10:41:15AM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 03:19:18AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > #31620:
> > >   * scripts/dpkg-divert and update-alternatives: Don't hardcode ENOENT!
> > 
> > Where do you propose we get ENOENT for? POSIX might not be available
> > and we have to get it somewhere..
> We could perhaps include $CPAN/modules/by-module/Errno/ in perl-base or
> whatever it's called nowadays.

    Please forgive me if the answer is obvious, but why is dpkg-divert
checking for ENOENT _in addition to_ checking for a successful lstat()?
It seems to me that all possible failure modes of lstat() should have the
same significance in dpkg-divert.  It also seems that update-alternatives
is checking for ENOENT after the fact where -e or -l before the fact would
more correctly and portably fulfill the intention.

    I'm not arguing for/against adding Errno to perl-5.005-base, nor am
I criticizing the dpkg team's code; I'd just like to understand if there
are deeper issues I'm missing here.

* Kurt Starsinic (Kurt.Starsinic@isinet.com) --------- Technical Specialist *
|    `The future masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and     |
|     intelligent.  The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.'      |
|                            -- Marshall McLuhan                            |
Institute for Scientific Information                   http://www.isinet.com/

Reply to: