On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:21:40PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > David Kalnischkies, le Tue 11 Feb 2014 19:36:59 +0100, a écrit : > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:35:37PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote: > > > The apt 0.9.15.1 started to use futimens instead of previous utime. > > > > > > The futimens() is not supported on kfreebsd. > > > > Could this be added to the manpage utimensat(2)? I had looked there and > > assumed that by POSIX1.2008 and that it is in glibc it would be safe to > > use it as utime replacement… > > Well, but with old Linux kernels you would have the same issue.
Sure, but I don't exactly see the point here. The manpage talks about 2.6.26 which is … not even oldstable. I think glibc requires newer kernels (at least I think I had this problem last year with armel). My point was more that I would have expected the manpage to give at least a passing mention of the non-availability on !linux as they usually do and are (therefore) my primary source for such stuff while being offline… (and the cppcheck message was not helping either). Of course, completely my fault, I just wanted to mention how I ended up on the wrong track so that others aren't able follow my 'lead'. > > > The futimes() is currently supported (at least) on linux, kfreebsd, hurd. > > > > It isn't part of any standard though, so I would worry now that we could > > run into problems with it as well. > > Indeed. But you could at least check for them in configure.ac and use > what is available (autoconf will properly figure out that futimens are > ENOSYS stubs in glibc on !linux, BTW). Codesearch is suggesting this, but we really don't care enough for time to add that much of trickery. Anyway, with the recent upload we just switched (back) to utimes and should be done. Sorry for the trouble. Best regards David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
