Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
>
>> Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
>>
you're confusing the shell's "is this file executable" check with
the loader's "can I execute this file" check:
>...
>Well, that doesn't tell us anyt
Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
>> no, I'm showing that a local file marked as executable overrides a
>> shared one, even if the local file isn't actually an executable.
>
> Only if you have your system set up badly. The current directory
> should not be in the search path, a
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
>
>>> you're confusing the shell's "is this file executable" check with
>>> the loader's "can I execute this file" check:
>>>
>>> $ export PATH=.:$PATH
>>> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=ls count=1
>>> 1+0 records in
>>> 1+0 recor
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
>
> no, I'm showing that a local file marked as executable overrides a
> shared one, even if the local file isn't actually an executable.
> >>>
Only if you have your system set up badly. The current direct
Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
no, I'm showing that a local file marked as executable overrides a
shared one, even if the local file isn't actually an executable.
>>>
>>> Only if you have your system set up badly. The current directory
>>> should not be in the search path, and it esp
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> Paul Arthur wrote:
>
>>> no, I'm showing that a local file marked as executable overrides a
>>> shared one, even if the local file isn't actually an executable.
>>
>> Only if you have your system set up badly. The current directory
>> should not be in
Paul Arthur wrote:
>> no, I'm showing that a local file marked as executable overrides a
>> shared one, even if the local file isn't actually an executable.
>
> Only if you have your system set up badly. The current directory should
> not be in the search path, and it especially shouldn't have
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner
> wrote:
>
>> Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
>>> A similar function exists on Linux too. But even if a file has the
>>> right file format, if it does not have the execute bit se
Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
>> you're confusing the shell's "is this file executable" check with the
>> loader's "can I execute this file" check:
>>
>> $ export PATH=.:$PATH
>> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=ls count=1
>> 1+0 records in
>> 1+0 records out
>> $ ls -l ls
>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 slab slab 512 De
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
> Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
>> A similar function exists on Linux too. But even if a file has the
>> right file format, if it does not have the execute bit set, won't run.
>> And you could set that bit on a JPG image too
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
>
>> No, they aren't! Try this:
>
> you're confusing the shell's "is this file executable" check with the
> loader's "can I execute this file" check:
>
> $ export PATH=.:$PATH
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=ls count=1
> 1+0 rec
Sebastian 'lunar' Wiesner wrote:
> No, they aren't! Try this:
you're confusing the shell's "is this file executable" check with the
loader's "can I execute this file" check:
$ export PATH=.:$PATH
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=ls count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
$ ls -l ls
-rw-rw-r-- 1 slab slab 5
Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> "Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 16 dic, 04:47, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>>
>>>This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe"
>>>contains
>>>
Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb
> On 17 dic, 19:21, "Roger Upole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> > os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>>
>> >>This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe"
>> >>contains
>> >> nothing but zeros.
>>
>> > Isn't
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> At Monday 18/12/2006 13:41, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> I was working on a new release and wanted to add file associations
>> to it. That is, if the user selected a file and double clicked or
>> pressed Enter, I wanted the following behavior (in the following
>> steps, "ty
At Monday 18/12/2006 13:41, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I was working on a new release and wanted to add file associations
to it. That is, if the user selected a file and double clicked or
pressed Enter, I wanted the following behavior (in the following
steps, "type" means nothing more than "a file who
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> On 17 dic, 19:21, "Roger Upole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
nothing but zeros.
>>> Isn't the same with any other recipe, porta
On 17 dic, 19:21, "Roger Upole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>
> >>This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
> >> nothing but zeros.
>
> > Isn't the same with any other recipe, portable or not? Unless the OS
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Roger Upole wrote:
>> Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>>> On 16 dic, 04:47, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
nothing but zeros.
>>> Is
Roger Upole wrote:
> Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>> On 16 dic, 04:47, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>>> This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
>>> nothing but zeros.
>> Isn't the same with any other
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> On 16 dic, 04:47, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>
>>This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
>> nothing but zeros.
>
> Isn't the same with any other recipe, portable or n
"Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 dic, 04:47, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>
>>This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
>> nothing but zeros.
>
>Isn't the same with any other r
On 16 dic, 04:47, Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>This will tell you that "x.exe" is executable, even if "x.exe" contains
> nothing but zeros.
Isn't the same with any other recipe, portable or not? Unless the OS
actually tries to
Tim Daneliuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This seems to work, at least approximately:
>
> os.stat(selected)[ST_MODE] & (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH
>
>It probably does not catch every single instance of something
>that could be considered "executable" because this is a sort
>of fluid thing in Window
Tim Golden wrote:
> [Tim Daneliuk]
>> I have a program wherein I want one behavior when a file is
>> set as executable and a different behavior if it is not. Is
>> there a simple way to determine whether a given named file is
>> executable that does not resort to all the lowlevel ugliness
>> of os
[Tim Daneliuk]
> I have a program wherein I want one behavior when a file is
> set as executable and a different behavior if it is not. Is
> there a simple way to determine whether a given named file is
> executable that does not resort to all the lowlevel ugliness
> of os.stat() AND that is porta
At Thursday 14/12/2006 19:21, John McMonagle wrote:
> I have a program wherein I want one behavior when a file is set
as executable
> and a different behavior if it is not. Is there a simple way to determine
> whether a given named file is executable that does not resort to all the
> lowlevel
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> I have a program wherein I want one behavior when a file is set as executable
> and a different behavior if it is not. Is there a simple way to determine
> whether a given named file is executable that does not resort to all the
> lowlevel ugliness of os.stat() AND that is po
28 matches
Mail list logo
