Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>