directory g+s vs. mv (was: Two bugs: sticky bit directory and ld -e)

[Aled Morris]

>But what happens if you use mv
>to rename files without write protection in a directory with the sticky
>bit and write permissions? mv happily creates a new link for the file to
>be renamed, but can't remove the old link. So mv works essentially as ln.

I reported this to SunUK a couple of months ago (call #30701), but all I
got was a brush off, apparently from Sun US, to the effect that "its
behaviour is completely reasonable".  Now I can understand _why_ it was
screwing up, what I was complaining about was that "mv" ought really to
obey the principle of least suprise.  "Gee, it's screwed up my disk, thats
a suprise" :-)

Aled Morris
systems programmer

    mail: awm at doc.ic.ac.uk    |    Department of Computing
    uucp: ..!ukc!icdoc!awm    |    Imperial College
    talk: 01-589-5111x5085    |    180 Queens Gate, London  SW7 2BZ

[[ I reported it to hotline a couple days ago.  The response I got was
"we'll look into it and see if it is really a problem."  --wnl ]]