From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 9 2:14: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from relay.butya.kz (butya-gw.butya.kz [212.154.129.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1323137C327; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:13:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bp@butya.kz) Received: from bp (helo=localhost) by relay.butya.kz with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 130KrK-000NUR-00; Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:13:46 +0700 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:13:46 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov To: Kris Kennaway Cc: John LoVerso , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mktemp() patch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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