"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@xxxxxxx> writes: >> From: Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:30:27 -0800 >> Cc: autoconf@xxxxxxx >> >> >> test -f tex.exe && test -x tex.exe >> > >> > This will work, but is redundant: it's enough to test for tex.exe, >> > since it's always executable on MS systems. >> >> I have had Windows systems refuse to execute .exe files that were >> mounted off a NetApp until I switched over to a Unix system and >> did a chmod +x. > > This is an exception, specific to some network software. Native > Windows filesystems don't have an executable bit, AFAIK. There was no special network software installed on the machine in question. If some Windows systems need an executable bit to run programs on some filesystems, why not test for the executable bit? -- "Let others praise ancient times; I am glad I was born in these." --Ovid (43 BC-18 AD) _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
