Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: problems building abc Message-ID: Date: 12 Jan 91 03:38:26 GMT References: <1991Jan01.211524.18484@kithrup.COM> <1991Jan2.155305.10523@onion.pdx.com> <1991Jan4.025136.13039@NCoast.ORG> <5183@auspex.auspex.com> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 27 In-reply-to: guy@auspex.auspex.com's message of 11 Jan 91 18:45:15 GMT In article <5183@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: | >BSD (Sun?) added it for NFS: the semantics of unlink() are valid only for | >UNIX-like file systems, while remove() has semantics that are valid over a | >much wider set of filesystem types. ... | "unlink()", for plain files, is equivalent to "remove()"; it gets turned | into a "remove this file" request when sent to an NFS server by a SunOS | (or probably most other NFS) clients. | | Neither 4.2BSD nor 4.3BSD nor 4.3-tahoe have "remove()" (yes, I checked | the source to 4.3-tahoe); 4.3-reno has it, as a wrapper around | "unlink()". SunOS didn't have it prior to SunOS 4.1. The ANSI standard added remove. It is the same as unlink under UNIX. I forget whether it was added on general concensious, or whether the VMS-C representative insisted on it. Since 4.2, 4.3, and 4.3-tahoe preceded the ANSI standard, they certainly can't be held accountable for not having it..... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?