Date: Mon, 2 Jan 95 16:31:07 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: crtb@upcoming.dcrt.nih.gov, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does ls report wrong creation date on symlinks? Message-ID: <9501022331.AA02074@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199412310244.NAA19380@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Dec 31, 94 01:44:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >It is precisely the fact that a DOS file system can not store all of > >the date information required by POSIX that makes it impossible to > >produce a POSIX compliant DOS file system. The DOS FS simply can > >not comply with the POSIX "shall mark for update" and "shall update" > >directives. > > >POSIX leaves a loophole, allowing read-only media to ignore the > >update requirements -- so you can be technically compliant if you > >mount the disk read-only. Very useful. 8-). > > Pretending that directories were modified at the current time breaks > even this :-). Actually, no it doesn't. POSIX doesn't require the information be accurate. POSIX only required that the information be updated in certain circumstances. Directories, on the other hand, do not even need to be considered as files at all... the update semantics are based on the opendir/readdir. The question is whether or not it is legal to make a distinction between a file descriptor being used to access a directory and one being used to access a file, such that the first is not considered a file access. This is, it turns out, legal. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9501022331.AA02074>