bug#1106: [BusyBox] bug#1106: BusyBox] ln bug!

[Kenneth Chalmers]

On Tuesday 13 February 2001 11:01 pm, you wrote:

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Once is probably enough :)

Awww, but I wanted to be REALLY SURE that it got included :)

Argh.  Was I wearing my glasses yesterday?  Amazing how the seemingly 
simple little patches keep biting you in the butt.

Intriguing, though, how the "defined BB_LN" bit was already there in the 
get_last_path_component() #if stuff even though it wasn't used in ln.c 
before my patch - wonder if it was in there earlier and was removed for 
some reason!?!??

> Please use xmalloc (and, while you're at it, change the other
> malloc call to an xmalloc as well).

Or, as suggested by Larry Doolittle, I'm using xstrdup in my updated 
patch.  This message has still another update that changes that other 
malloc to xmalloc, though.

> Regarding your second message, busybox ln has gross behavior if
> (a) it is given no arguments or (b) it is given only one argument.

Hmmm...so, is that a "yes, it's gross, fix it," or a "it's gross, but 
we're just accepting it, don't touch it."  Given the success of my bugfix 
patch I'm hoping for the latter ;)

	-Ken

-- 
Kenneth Chalmers     |  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like,
chalmers at norscan.com |  you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: utility.c.patch
Url: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20010214/0bf467dc/attachment.diff 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ln.c.patch
Url: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20010214/0bf467dc/attachment-0001.diff