No, stat() of "." predates linux by almost two decades. And coreutils is a set of unix tools. You can build them on other systems, but only via emulation layers that are reponsible for handling the friction (and those layers would likewise be subject to this same logic).

Or I guess what you're saying is that uutils is a cross platform project? Which is true enough, but it's still responsible for faithfully representing the behavior of the underlying system. And when running uutils on linux, stating "." (in this case to detect that src and dst are the same file) is legal and valid.

It's true there are other ways to solve the same problem than emulating a linux syscall layer, but you have to pick one. You don't get to use "the standard library can't stat ." or "we have to run on windows" as an excuse.

Nobody is saying this is not a bug. I am saying that "It's rust that has the broken picture of the filesystem environment" is not true in any way. Rust implements a cross-platform filesystem API. The fact that it does not work the same way as the Linux kernel does not make it "broken".

That's a little out of context. The situation being described[1] is that "rust cannot stat the path '.'". A core requirement of coreutils is to work with a unix filesystem where "." is a valid path. Ergo, from the point of view of the requirements at hand, the rust filesystem layer is "broken". It doesn't do what uutils needs it to do.

[1] And I'll admit that I don't have any understanding of the actual low level issue here or why native pathnames are being interpreted by the runtime and not passed through to the OS layer.

Because if you just pass them through, you will not have consistent behaviour across platforms. That was the original point: Rust implements a consistent, cross-platform filesystem API. It does not necessarily match whatever your platform happens to do.

But uutils needs to necessarily match whatever your platform happens to do, or else it breaks[1] in silly ways like this when it turns out that "." stops being a path.

[1] Maybe this is all just a semantic argument about this use of the word "broken"? This is a long-standing usage. It doesn't mean that Rust's standard library isn't useful for anything, it means that it isn't useful here because of design choices that don't match the problem at hand. If it were something that can be fixed, it would just be "buggy". But it can't (for the reasons you mention!). Therefore it's "broken", not "buggy".