Stephen Warren added the comment:
I'd say that junction points were a great way to expose this feature
under Win32 - after all, isn't it specifically what they were designed for?
Incidentally, at least one other application uses them for exactly this
purpose; a commercial source co
Stephen Warren added the comment:
I can confirm this happens for me too, also on CentOS 5, with SVN 2.5
HEAD as of now.
It seems that this problem occurs, whilst running the first compileall
command for the libinstall target:
Compiling /somewhere/lib/python2.5/test/test_multibytecodec.py
Stephen Warren added the comment:
The attached patch should solve the problem by adding appropriate
dependencies to the libinstall target.
I have tested:
./configure; make install
but not yet:
./configure; make all install
./configure; make all; make install
Note: I introduced a new
Stephen Warren added the comment:
Now, I have also tested:
./configure; make all install
./configure; make all; make install
The "install" piece of each of the above doesn't seem to accidentally
duplicate any of the building work, so the patch seems to check out OK -
no negati
Stephen Warren added the comment:
Hmm. I just tested Accurev - whatever it does, it works for files too.
That said, it could be making hard-links, which I guess could be different.
Additionally, the sysinternals "junction" utility doesn't find any
junction points when probing
Stephen Warren added the comment:
It seems that Accurev uses junction points for directories, and
hard-links for files. That's probably a little to disparate to implement
in Python?
Also, I tried sysinternals' junction.exe and whilst it allows one to
create junction points that poin
New submission from Stephen Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Run the following Python script, on Unix/Linux:
==
import zipfile
z = zipfile.ZipFile('zipbad.zip', 'w')
z.writestr('filebad.txt', 'Some content')
z.close()
z = zipfile.Zi
Stephen Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
Oops. Forgot to set "type" field.
--
type: -> behavior
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http
Stephen Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
I'd probably argue for at least 0660<<16, if not 0666<<16, since group
permissions are pretty typically set, but even 0666<<16 would be OK,
since the umask on extraction would take away any permissions the
extr