On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > I think this just re-breaks things on Windows. That first setup test > > used "chmod +x" (which is brought back by your patch), without having > > the POSIXPERM prerequisite. > > > > We probably do not want to mark the whole setup test as POSIXPERM, as > > that would effectively break all of the other tests on Windows. The rest > > of the tests need to be able to work whether or not the "chmod +x" was > > run. It may be simpler to just break the executable-bit tests, including > > setup, out to their own section of the script. > > > The commit message does not explain that part of the patch at all - to me > it looks as if the direct "echo" and "chmod +x" is simply replaced > by calling a function which does just that, or more exactly, not quite: Ah, right. I figured that systems that don't handle `chmod +x` would omit it from write_script(). But it looks like we don't. I guess the logic is that on Windows "chmod +x" doesn't _complain_, it's simply a noop for adding the file to the index (because we unset core.filemode). So in that sense, Windows is fine with that setup either way. I wondered why it would not later fail the same sha1 check, since "git add" would not respect the executable bit on such a system. But the answer is that we do not "git add" the result; we import it using svn, and then convert that to a git tree. > > That being said, t9100 seems to pass for me, even at bcb11f1. Can you > > show us the breakage you are seeing? > > SHELL_PATH=/bin/dash (in config.mak) > > As I explained in my commit message, the problem arises when SHELL_PATH is > not "/bin/sh" and, consequently, > the generated "exec.sh" results in a blob with a different sha1. Oh, of course. I forgot that my SHELL_PATH is in fact /bin/sh. Sorry for being thick. Assuming your patch works on Windows (and from the logic above, I think it should be the case?), then I think it's a good solution. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html