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
> 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
