Hello Pierre,
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> See below a bug reported against the glibc. Since the glibc maintainer
> dodged that one, I assume the bug indeed is in the documentation of
> ftw(3). My manpages are the 3.24-1 Debian package.
Yes. The man page is clearly incorrect. Thanks for reporting this.
> IMHO the patch is:
>
> -fpath is the pathname of the entry relative to dirpath.
> +fpath is the pathname of the entry relative to the current working directory.
>
> POSIX is very vague about what "fpath" should be btw.
(Agreed. It could be more precise.)
I believe the correct text should be this:
fpath is the pathname of the entry, and is
expressed either as a pathname relative to the
calling process's current working directory at the
time of the call to ftw(), if dirpath was expressed
as a relative pathname, or as an absolute pathname,
if dirpath was expressed as an absolute pathname.
I have updated the man page accordingly, but would welcome
review/checking of this text.
Cheers,
Michael
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 05:26:09PM -0000, madcoder at debian dot org wrote:
>> The man page states:
>>
>> int ftw(const char *dirpath,
>> int (*fn) (const char *fpath, const struct stat *sb,
>> int typeflag),
>> int nopenfd);
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> fpath is the pathname of the entry relative to dirpath.
>>
>> Though it appears that it is the pathname of the entry relative to the current
>> working directory.
>>
>> FWIW this may be a documentation bug since the similar fts interface clearly
>> states that the similar fts_accpath is relative to the current working
>> directory.
>>
>> --
>> Summary: ftw doesn't work like documented (may be a documentation
>> bug)
>> Product: glibc
>> Version: unspecified
>> Status: NEW
>> Severity: normal
>> Priority: P2
>> Component: libc
>> AssignedTo: drepper at redhat dot com
>> ReportedBy: madcoder at debian dot org
>> CC: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
>>
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11459
>>
>> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
>
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 08:11:46PM -0000, drepper at redhat dot com wrote:
>>
>> ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com 2010-04-03 20:11 -------
>> The man pages do not come with glibc and are in no way authoritative. You have
>> to report this elsewhere.
>>
>> --
>> What |Removed |Added
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
>> Resolution| |INVALID
>>
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11459
>>
>> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
>
>
> --
> ·O· Pierre Habouzit
> ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
> OOO http://www.madism.org
>
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Author of "The Linux Programming Interface" http://blog.man7.org/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
