[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2013-10-13 Thread Georg Brandl
Georg Brandl added the comment: Closing as suggested. -- nosy: +georg.brandl resolution: - wont fix status: pending - closed ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue10888 ___

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2012-10-20 Thread Serhiy Storchaka
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com: -- status: open - pending ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue10888 ___ ___

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-04-19 Thread Tim Golden
Tim Golden m...@timgolden.me.uk added the comment: FWIW I agree with MvL: os.stat is one of those awkward customers left over from the idea that Windows could be posix-compliant, even though the relevant concepts don't actually map particularly well. ISTM that anyone seriously wanting to

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-04-18 Thread Sijin Joseph
Sijin Joseph sijinjos...@gmail.com added the comment: From reading http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899147 it does look like the .dll extension needs to have the Read Execute permission in order to have code from the .dll be executed. It's odd that there isn't documentation that's easily

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-04-18 Thread Martin v . Löwis
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment: Jeroen: I'm tempted to close this issue with no change. The code, as it stands, models what Microsoft does in it's CRT (see crt/src/stat.c:__tdtoxmode). There is also a straight-forward motivation to this: this is the list of extensions

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-01-11 Thread dobbelaj
New submission from dobbelaj jeroen.dobbela...@gmail.com: The 'os.stat' method on windows seems to be hardcoded to check the file name extension when computing the 'executable permission flag' (st_mode). (See Modules/posixmodule.c: win32_stat and win32_wstat) Currently, it checks for :

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-01-11 Thread Brian Curtin
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment: The Read Execute permission listed on a file's property window doesn't really mean anything. Executables only need read permissions [0] to actually be executed. Additionally, in terms of _stat, Windows does its check by extension [1] but they

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-01-11 Thread Jeroen Dobbelaere
Jeroen Dobbelaere jeroen.dobbela...@gmail.com added the comment: Some more background: The actual issue was initially detected when observing that the 'tarfile' package produced a tar containing different permissions, depending on the script being executed by 'cygwin python' or 'native

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-01-11 Thread Brian Curtin
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment: The actual issue was initially detected when observing that the 'tarfile' package produced a tar containing different permissions, depending on the script being executed by 'cygwin python' or 'native python'. I would expect that. Each of those

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-01-11 Thread Martin v . Löwis
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de added the comment: Brian: On native Windows, Read Execute has no real affect on applications. Why do you say that? The FILE_EXECUTE permission certainly has a meaning on Windows, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg258116(v=vs.85).aspx I agree

[issue10888] os.stat(filepath).st_mode gives wrong 'executable permission' result

2011-01-11 Thread Brian Curtin
Brian Curtin cur...@acm.org added the comment: I meant that it doesn't have any effect because it's apparently always set from what I could see, which was poor wording. The TechNet article also made a similar claim. If it is ever not set, then the file clearly can't be executed. --