From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@ubuntu.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:56:26 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use utime rather than utimes
Message-Id: <1268229386.18976.3.camel@wing-commander>
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-ceYNe00vKMmuxuw1N+Az"
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1268195770-20935-1-git-send-email-jon@ringle.org>
In-Reply-To: <1268195770-20935-1-git-send-email-jon@ringle.org>
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org


--=-ceYNe00vKMmuxuw1N+Az
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 10:22 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:

> Kay Sievers [2010-03-10  9:34 +0100]:
> > utime(): POSIX.1-2008 marks utime() as obsolete.=20
>=20
> That's actually what the manpage says, indeed. However, it contradicts
> what's written in the standard:
>=20
>   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/sys/time.h.html#=
tag_13_64
>=20
> says utimes() is obsolete and
>=20
>   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/utime.h.html#tag=
_13_81
>=20
> says nothing about being obsolete. However, this might not be _the_
> POSIX standard?
>=20
That's the 2004 version of the standard you're quoting.  2008 changed
its mind ;-)

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/utime.html

This notes:

    The utime() function is marked obsolescent.


http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/utimes.html

This notes:

    The LEGACY marking is removed.

Scott
--=20
Scott James Remnant
scott@ubuntu.com

--=-ceYNe00vKMmuxuw1N+Az
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkuXpQUACgkQSnQiFMl4yK51BwCghi21B+rYWqIWuGS+kS6C0deR
K/YAniYZhvVTNNrI2rcamS2QvcE4h7Yr
=ak1E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-ceYNe00vKMmuxuw1N+Az--