[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: RE: Linux prefered for running Subversion : call for testimonials

From: Andy Levy <andy.levy_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-11-15 14:32:54 CET

On Nov 15, 2007 6:39 AM, Duncan Booth
<duncan.booth@suttoncourtenay.org.uk> wrote:
> "Andy Levy" <andy.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So, even if I have a file extension associated with an EXE, such as
> >> .pl with 'Perl.exe', it won't run unless I explicitly specify
> >> 'perl.exe'?
> >
> > Correct. The source for the hook-handling code in Subversion only
> > looks for .exe, .cmd and .bat. Windows is able to execute these
> > directly, without an add-on interpreter, so it can call them directly.
> > Windows doesn't have an execute bit on file permissions like *NIX
> > does.
> Windows is able to execute a lot more than just .exe, .cmd and .bat
> directly: the shell will use the file associations from the registry to
> open any executable script which it finds. The executable scripts are
> defined by the PATHEXT environment variable which defaults to:
> but you can add other extensions such as .py, .pl and these will then
> also become directly executable.
> Is there a good reason why Subversion couldn't use PATHEXT when looking
> for hooks?

WSF, at least on my install (which I haven't changed from defaults),
defaults to running under wscript.exe. Which is pretty useless when
run as a hook script, it needs to be cscript.exe.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 15 14:34:00 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.