On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 07:41:49PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> 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.
Afaict, it's not correct: ftw may perform chdir() calls, so the pathname
is relative to the current working directory at the time `fn` is called.
I'd rather phrase it that way (minus probable english mistakes):
fpath is the pathname of the entry, and is either a relative
pathname to the current working directory of the application when
`fn` is called, or as an absolute pathname.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx
OOO http://www.madism.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
