Hi,
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:52:16PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > If there was a named pipe /tmp/foo with an executable bit set, the test
> > could misclasify it as an executable file.
...
> FWIW, I don't regard this as ``misclasification'', since the named
> pipe does, indeed, have its execu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eli Zaretskii on 1/22/2005 9:46 PM:
>
> Then how can I, with the Cygwin Bash, make a reliable test for the
> existence of `foo'? Suppose that `foo' doesn't exist, but `foo.exe'
> does--how can one test for that?
If only `foo.exe' exists
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:51:06 -0700
> From: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, autoconf@gnu.org, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> >>2) On Cygwin, both `test -x foo' and `test -f foo' look for foo.exe.
> >
> > That's a bug, IMHO.
>
> It's actually a design decisio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eli Zaretskii on 1/22/2005 9:23 AM:
>>2) On Cygwin, both `test -x foo' and `test -f foo' look for foo.exe.
>
> That's a bug, IMHO.
It's actually a design decision, and seems correct to me. As -x applies
to more than just executables (fo
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:57:44 +0100
> From: Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], autoconf@gnu.org, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> If there was a named pipe /tmp/foo with an executable bit set, the test
> could misclasify it as an executable file.
Thanks for the explanations.
FW
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 06:23:25PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I proposed to change the implementation of AS_EXECUTABLE_P on platforms
> > supporting `test -x' from
> >test -f $1 && test -x $1
> > to
> >test -x $1 && test ! -d $1
> >
> > But Paul has pointed out the cha
> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:30:07 +0100
> From: Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, autoconf@gnu.org, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>
> I proposed to change the implementation of AS_EXECUTABLE_P on platforms
> supporting `test -x' from
>test -f $1 && test -x $1
> t
