Erik Faye-Lund <kusmab...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> >>> Exactly. I am happy to submit a patch, but I cannot think of any >>> mechanisms besides: >>> >>> 1. Calling `id`, which I suspect is very not portable. >>> >>> 2. Writing a C program to check getuid(). That's portable for most >>> Unixes. It looks like we already have a hacky wrapper on mingw that >>> will always return "1". >>> >>> Is (2) too gross? >> >> Not overly gross compared to some existing test-*.c files, I would >> say. >> >> I wondered what 'perl -e 'print $>' would say in mingw, and if that >> is portable enough, though. > > $ perl -e 'print $>' > 500
Thanks for a follow-up. Is "id -u" not useful over there? I ask because that is what is used in the version tentatively queued on 'pu' for NOT_ROOT prerequisite (the jk/sanity topic). The SANITY prerequisite in that topic needs to be replaced with the one from Torsten that attempts to check what we want to know in a more direct way; i.e. "after making a directory or a file read-only, does the filesystem really honours that, or lets us clobber?" is what we need to know to skip some tests, and we should check that, instead of "is / writable by us?" or "are we root?". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
