X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_21,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: UNZIP: Why don't .exe/.dll files get eXecute privs? Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:42:16 -0700 Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <806a89db0908151400j6ec51bb8o6622b9da87c23bd7 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4A89B06B DOT 5070509 AT etr-usa DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b3 In-Reply-To: <4A89B06B.5070509@etr-usa.com> X-Stationery: 0.4.10 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On 08/17/2009 12:32 PM, Warren Young wrote: > Jim Reisert AD1C wrote: >> >> I can't control how the ZIP file gets created, but I do expect that >> when I unzip a file, that the .exe will actually execute without >> having to change permissions! > > I guess it comes down to a question of whether *.exe implies chmod +x. > It doesn't in any "native" *ix packaging format, like tar or cpio. > Doing this would thus be a break from expected behavior for some. I > can see your point, Jim, but I don't think the answer is obvious. > > Should unzip do this for *.sh? *.pl? *.insert-yfl-extension? Sure, why not? > Before you answer, have you looked at a programming language list > lately? There are "only" about 750 on this index page in Wikipedia: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages > > I've seen other lists that put the count at more like 2,500. > Obviously we don't have to handle them all, as some may re-use > extensions, and others aren't directly executable from a shell, like C > code. We're still left with hundreds, surely? If we don't have to > handle them all, what's the razor that describes which get this > special treatment and which don't? How do you deal with conflicts > among file name extensions? Computers are good at handling large lists of things... > > Now throw in shebang magic. Does unzip have to set the executable bit > on files with a shebang line at the start? Great idea! > What if it's binary data that just happens to start with those two bytes? You obviously need to look at more than just those two... > Now does unzip have to parse the line and check for the existence of > an interpreter? Another good idea! > Should unzip have this special-case code only if it doesn't see an > ACL, or does it override explicit settings? > > This isn't Cygwin-specific. I use a package on Linux that uses zip > for its distributed binary packages (yeah, yech, I know), and has a > bunch of chmod hackery in its post-unpack installation instructions. Only 1/2 a smiley smirk... -- Andrew DeFaria What happened to Preparations A through G? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple