executable (+/-) in files ignored on non-*nix FS under Ubuntu

Bug #522603 reported by I'M YourOnly.One 🔏
10
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Bazaar
Confirmed
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

I asked about this first on the #bzr freenode channel (Feb 16, 2010).

It is about the non-*nix filesystem (on my end it's NTFS) that changes files from -x to +x permission, which in effect makes the bzr diff to report that there were changes on the local (fresh) copy as compared to the online trunk.

It works fine if I use a *nix FS like ext4.

OS: Ubuntu Karmic 64-bit

Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote : Re: [Bug 522603] [NEW] executable (+/-) in files ignored on non-*nix FS under Ubuntu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

JC John Sese Cuneta wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> I asked about this first on the #bzr freenode channel (Feb 16, 2010).
>
> It is about the non-*nix filesystem (on my end it's NTFS) that changes
> files from -x to +x permission, which in effect makes the bzr diff to
> report that there were changes on the local (fresh) copy as compared to
> the online trunk.
>
> It works fine if I use a *nix FS like ext4.
>
>
> OS: Ubuntu Karmic 64-bit
>
> ** Affects: bzr
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New

 importance: medium
 status: confirmed

Just to be clear, this is if you use NTFS or vfat on a Linux OS. We have
a check that if 'sys.platform == "win32"' then we track the executable
bit differently, and we just need to extend this to filesystems without
executable bit tracking on other OSes.

However, I'm not sure how to *detect* that a filesystem doesn't support
the executable bit in an easy manner. I think we would need to try to
both set a file executable (chmod +x) and unexecutable (chmod -x) and
check that one of them failed to work. (because you can mount an FS as
either all executable or all unexecutable.)

I don't think we want to do chmod on every run, so we'd probably also
need to set a flag somewhere (like in the dirstate file).

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkt6ytYACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMwaQCfckLZNgTfeeGfbCkzaX1lArhF
XXUAn1yNuTFu4X3R87k832gCGSBFMZ9G
=6hqZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Changed in bzr:
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote :

 importance wishlist
 done

I'm downgrading this to wishlist because:
 - it affects very few users (first report in 5 years ;P)
 - its essentially outside our control

Changed in bzr:
importance: Medium → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
Martin Pool (mbp) wrote :

Not quite the first report; this is essentially bug 240294

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.