RE: [MiNT] an example of broken lib

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Frank Naumann
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 1999 2:14 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: MiNT mailing list
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] an example of broken lib


> > > A propos library binding: What if Ffchown() and Ffchmod() is
> not supported
> > > by the kernel?  I would suggest to always return 0 for success in the
> > > library.  For older MiNT versions this is somewhat
> problematic but it will
> > > be handy for MagiC and TOS without mulit-user support.
> Anybody has got
> > > problems with that?
> > >
> > > The same applies under MiNT if the FS doesn't support these calls.  I
> > > think it is ok to report success nonetheless, is it?
> >
> > The kernel should pass back what the XFS reports. It shouldn't make any
> > assumptions about why a particular error code is returned.
>
> The kernel return an EINVFN as E_OK. I introduced this in 1.5.0 to make
> the FAT filesystem more tar friendly. I see no negative side effect, it
> exist Dpathconf() to verify if a feature is supported.

I really don't like this. The kernel shouldn't lie to me. If this is useful,
it should be done in the library.