Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
As a general comment, 36119 makes me a little nervous as 'chmod' isn't
something you can count on unless your on a POSIX like system and osname
ne 'MSWin32' certainly would encompass non-POSIX systems. Are you
planning on retool this patch to be more pedantic about
Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
-copy("$_$LOAD_EXT", $dest) or die "Copy $_$LOAD_EXT failed ($?)\n";
+File::Copy::syscopy("$_$LOAD_EXT", $dest) or die "Copy $_$LOAD_EXT failed
($?)\n";
Certainly on cygwin File::Copy::syscopy also seems to lose execute
permissions, despite what th
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:31:54PM -0700, Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
> [cut from a off list thread between jhoblitt & nickg]
>
> >As a general comment, 36119 makes me a little nervous as 'chmod' isn't
> >something you can count on unless your on a POSIX like system and osname
> >ne 'MSWin32' cer
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nick Glencross (via RT) wrote:
+if ($^O ne 'MSWin32') {
I'd much more prefer one of:
a) if $^O eq 'hpux'
b) fix the "copy" to preserve perms
Anyway, as hpux is still broken in several other places, I'll drop a
note in PLATFORMS and not apply the patch now.
Nick Glencross (via RT) wrote:
+if ($^O ne 'MSWin32') {
I'd much more prefer one of:
a) if $^O eq 'hpux'
b) fix the "copy" to preserve perms
Anyway, as hpux is still broken in several other places, I'll drop a
note in PLATFORMS and not apply the patch now.
leo
