UnixWare 2.03 patch

[Tim Rice]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 mouring at etoh.eviladmin.org wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 04:14:15PM -0600, mouring at etoh.eviladmin.org wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Tim Rice wrote:
> > > > Here is a patch to help UnixWare 2.03 along.
> > > > 
> > > > No if we could only change utimes() back to utime() in scp.c & sftp-server.c
> > > > we would have a working versin for Unixware 2.03 and SCO 3.2v4.2
> > > > 
> > > One could always write a utime() emulation via utimes().
> > 
> > Yes, but this leaves my previous question unanswered: why bother with
> > emulating utimes() via utime(), instead of using the more portable utime()
> > directly?
> > 
> > The only benefit of utimes() is the millisecond resolution, which
> > OpenSSH doesn't use (at least not last time I checked, tv_usec was
> > explicitely set to 0).
> > 
> Either way... We will need to emulate one or the other.  Personally I

All the systems I have encountered with utimes, also have utime.
But not all systems have utimes. Some have utime only.
Are there any system that have utimes but not utime?

> could careless which one we use.  Again, the only reason why it's
> utimes() is because sftp-server.c used it and I asked if we could be
> consistant.  And a lot more platforms support it due to it's BSD
> history.  It's just oddballs like SCO that don't tend to implement
> complete BSD API alongside SysV.
> 
> - Ben
> 
> 

-- 
Tim Rice				Multitalents	(707) 887-1469
tim at multitalents.net