bug#39929: coreutils-8.32 fails to build on aarch64

[Bernhard Voelker]

On 2020-03-06 02:27, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 3/5/20 1:43 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> Why is this code even there at all? If readdir(3) says that the current
>> directory has no entries, shouldn't 'ls' just say that? Why should ls
>> report an error simply because the current directory isn't reachable
>> from the filesystem? Whether the current directory is unreachable has
>> nothing to do with ls's job, which is to report whether the current
>> directory has entries.
>
> Attached is a proposed patch to fix this.

I tend to agree (now): returning an error when there was none seems at least
unlucky.  Sorry I didn't comment in the original discussion.

> diff --git a/tests/ls/removed-directory.sh b/tests/ls/removed-directory.sh

That test was also added in commit 05a99f7d7f8e, so the the description
at the top does not match after reverting:

  #!/bin/sh
  # If ls is asked to list a removed directory (e.g. the parent process's
  # current working directory that has been removed by another process), it
  # emits an error message.

s/emits/shall not emit/

Thanks & have a nice day,
Berny