Re: autoconf not hard-link safe

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 05:05, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> As far as I can see, this is a bug in 'patch', as 'patch' currently
> violates POSIX in this respect.
> <http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/xcu_chap01.html#tag_01_07_01_04>
> says that when a standard utility writes an existing regular file, it
> should not unlink and then create it; it should simply open it for
> writing.

Good catch. The patch utility description doesn't overrule that either.

> > It needn't be the default, but it certainly should be an option,
> 
> Yes, it would be reasonable to add it as an option.

Is this something an autoconf developer would be inclined to scratch? If
not, could I get some pointers about the best place in autoconf to look?

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part