Re: test-sigaction vs SA_RESTORER test failure

[Jim Meyering]

Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
> Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Eric Blake asked:
>>> Should the open-safer module depend on open?
>>
>> Yes, I think fcntl-safer should depend on 'open'.
>>
>> Jim, your opinion?
>
> Yes, most definitely.
> There are a few other modules that may call open in such a way
> (for writing, and with an arbitrary, caller-supplied file name)
> that using the open module would improve portability/consistency.
>
> How about this:
> [and with this I certainly don't need to add
> that manual dependency on open for coreutils ]
>
>>From 5129caf614ceda1cbefc05aed249699a18bf8a77 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:40:36 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] make several modules depend on the "open" module
>
> This provides slightly increased consistency when opening-for-write
> the name of a non-directory spelled with a trailing slash.
> * modules/chdir-safer: Likewise.
> * modules/chown: Likewise.
> * modules/clean-temp: Likewise.
> * modules/copy-file: Likewise.
> * modules/fchdir: Likewise.
> * modules/fcntl-safer: Likewise.
> * modules/pipe: Likewise.
> * modules/utime: Likewise.
> Prompted by Eric Blake and Bruno Haible.
...

I've pushed that.