From: Ralf W. <Ral...@gm...> - 2006-04-08 16:22:52
|
Hi Noah, Thanks for the review! Noah Misch writes: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:01:41PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> The `rm -f conf$$.dir' at the beginning (rather than a rmdir or rm -rf) >> is on purpose: if someone has such a leftover file, I'd like to know >> (plus I'm real nervous about any occurrences of `rm -rf'). > > Perhaps this motive deserves a comment in the code? I probably would have > chalked that up to a typo, had you not explained it. I cleaned that up now: test for directory, if no, then `rm -f' and mkdir, if yes, then only `rm -f' the file that will be the link target. >> m4_defun([_AS_LN_S_PREPARE], >> -[rm -f conf$$ conf$$.exe conf$$.file >> +[rm -f conf$$ conf$$.exe conf$$.file conf$$.dir > > Shouldn't you redirect 2>/dev/null, so the user sees no diagnostic when > conf$$.dir exists and is a directory? Should not be necessary any more. Any leftover diagnostics should be a sign for a genuine issue with the macro code, I believe. >> +test -d conf$$.dir || mkdir conf$$.dir > > If, here, the directory already exists, ... >> +rmdir conf$$.dir > > ... it might still contain something. Maybe 2>/dev/null here, too? Yes. New version attached, tested on MinGW (selects cp -p) and Cygwin (selects ln -s) now. OK? Cheers, Ralf |