Re: t5539 broken under Mac OS X

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2015, 02:51 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh9vdlyuu.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPQNSYZMS+feX=jSxwOhr+P8isroct2=Dcw18LSjCYZUvug=A@mail.gmail.com>

Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@gmail.com> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Jeff King <peff@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?".