On 02/27/2012 07:51 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Thanks for chiming in. I still haven't pushed my proposed patches to >> autoconf, and I'd like to make sure that what I'm proposing for autoconf >> still gets by on your MSYS system (I don't have MSYS set up myself, so >> getting feedback from you would be fastest). I assume that some of MSYS >> behavior on FAT is similar to cygwin on FAT, and I have been testing >> Cygwin on FAT, but I also know that Cygwin and MSYS have diverged so >> that is not necessarily a reliable result. > > Note, this is all MSYS on NTFS, no FAT in sight. Yuck. NTFS supports executable bits, without having to fake things so horribly, as evidenced by cygwin; cygwin only has to fake things on FAT. So it was a specific decision of the MSYS folks to fake it this badly. >> You didn't show $? nor 'ls -l' after 'chmod +x', but your transcript >> implies that since the filesystem can't record executable bits, that >> chmod is silently ignored, and the faking of executability is still >> being done. > > $ touch gurka > $ ./gurka; echo $? > 0 That's a POSIX violation. Oh well - MSYS wasn't really trying for POSIX, so much as bare minimum hacks to get things running for native Windows, and this is just one of those hacks. > $ ls -lG gurka > -rw-r--r-- 1 peda 0 Feb 27 15:39 gurka > $ chmod +x gurka; echo $? > 0 > $ ls -lG gurka > -rw-r--r-- 1 peda 0 Feb 27 15:39 gurka Sure enough, chmod is (silently) ignored, because permissions are being faked; but it's a shame that 'x' doesn't appear in the ls -l output in the case of the permissions being faked. >> Once I know those behaviors, I think I can ensure that my proposed test >> to require a "working" 'test -x' as a pre-req of finding a sane shell >> should still work for MSYS. > > $ test -x /; echo $? > 0 Good - this will pass the 'minimum support for test -x' probe that I'm sticking into configure. > $ test -x .; echo $? > 0 > $ printf '#!/bin/sh\nexit 0\n' > foo.sh > $ ./foo.sh; echo $? > 0 Good - even though there are no x bits, the test that I'm adding to the autoconf testsuite is smart enough to recognize that if the script _gets_ executed,... > $ test -x foo.sh; echo $? > 0 ...and 'test -x' says it could be executed, in spite of the missing 'x' bits, then the test will pass in spite of the brokenness of the 'x' semantics on that file system. > $ chmod a+x foo.sh; echo $? > 0 > $ ./foo.sh; echo $? > 0 > $ test -x foo.sh; echo $? > 0 So I'm pretty sure that I'm safe to check in my patches without causing grief for MSYS, although if you'd test the pre-release before 2.69, it can't hurt things. I hope to have the pre-release announcement out later today. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
