On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > demerphq wrote: > > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>So how, then, do I tell the testing system "this module only works on > >>Unix-like filesystems on Unix-like OSes"? > > Hopefully it will be something like: > > $I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1; > > My code is as portable as I can make it. Feel free to submit patches > for platforms that I don't have reasonable access to. Portability is > something I care a lot about.
It was a joke. Really. :-) > > > How do you define "unix-like filesystems on unix-like oses" btw? Would > > win32 count and what reason would you give for your answer, whatever > > it is. > > Is that Win95, NT, 2000 or Windows for Teletubbies; and is that using > NTFS, FAT16, FAT32, ext2*, HFS+*, HPFS, or whatever the hell it is that > MS have added in the latest version? If it's FAT or Win95 the answer is > "no" cos they have no concept of permissions. If it's anything else > then I don't know but I suspect not. The Windows permissions model is > VERY different, and I don't think it has a sane getpwent(), getgrent() > or anything like Unixy mode bits. It's arguably far superior to the > Unix one (although IIRC neither is a patch on Novell) but that's > irrelevant as I don't have a Windows box to play with. Sorry, i guess my comment was in bad taste. I was just alluding to observations made in the p5p lists and elsewhere that basing file system behaviour on the OS isnt entirely safe, and even expecting the same semantics in the a tree could be unsafe. cheers, yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
