> To: Mo DeJong <supermo@bayarea.net>
> Cc: subversion <dev@subversion.tigris.org>
> From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net>
> Date: 26 Dec 2001 13:38:21 -0600
> Subject: Re: "nasty chmod hack" patch
>
> Mo DeJong <supermo@bayarea.net> writes:
> > There is no reason to keep the chmod hack. The reason it was in there
> > before was to add execute perms to a shell script, but the patch runs
> > a shell script using $(SHELL) instead of executing it:
> >
> > runprog="$(SHELL) $$progbase"
>
> There is still a reason, Mo -- a lot of people run those tests
> directly from the command line, especially when they've written a new
> test or fixed an old test. In general, it's always useful to have
> runnable programs be +x, for this sort of reason.
You can still do "sh test.sh" instead of "./test.sh", no?
> > The chmods in autogen.sh could go away once the execute perms are
> > under revision control, but it should not matter for Makefile.in. Also,
> > the source code might be on a read only media (like a CD) so running
> > a chmod on the shell scripts at "make check" time would produce an error.
>
> Um, let's deal with that problem when it comes up.
--
FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE
3:01PM up 1 day, 1:39, 8 users, load averages: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:54 2006