> Cc: bug-texinfo@xxxxxxx, autoconf@xxxxxxx > From: Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:58:39 -0800 > > >> 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. Then what is NetApp? > If some Windows systems need an executable bit to run programs on > some filesystems, why not test for the executable bit? I cannot answer this until you explain why Windows refused to run the executable off a mounted volume. AFAIK, Windows doesn't have the notion of a file being executable, so it's not clear to me how the Unix executable bit succeeded in preventing Windows from running it. It could well be a bug in the software used to mount the volume, in which case I'm not sure we would wish to punish everyone else. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
