Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:13:46 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John LoVerso <loverso@infolibria.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mktemp() patch Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10006091559240.89816-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006082039030.67602-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > Count both, nwfs and smbfs, because any program can attempt to > > create temporary file on these filesystems. File with an invalid file name > > will be rejected, and this will cost an additional lookup operation(s). > > I'm not sure that weird filesystems are a valid argument against mktemp() > naming - there are LOTS of UNIX code which assumes UNIX namespace > conventions, and it's not just mktemp() which is going to break on weird > filesystems. For example, should we limit all FreeBSD file names to 8.3 > single-case in case someone wants to run from an old-style MSDOS > partition? Well, nwfs and smbfs filesystems usually used when one need to integrate FreeBSD machine in the already existing environment. So, the question is simple - do we need to help interoperability or not ? 8.3 format filenames are probably obsolete, and there is no reason to support them because nearly all server platforms support long file names. > Basically, I think the answer is not to use a nwfs or smbfs filesystem as > your TMPDIR :-) With mktemp() function you can create tempoary files anywhere, not just in TMPDIR. -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10006091559240.89816-100000>