RE: [cdt-dev] New generated makefile pattern

["Recoskie, Chris" <crecoskie@xxxxxx>]

Yes but when you get right down to it, the Java Runtime is eventually
going to call down low enough that it's going to try to do a "chmod o+w"
or something similar at the OS level.

I'm saying that the chmod is going to fail because ClearCase dynamic
views on UNIX are implemented using a proprietary file system (MVFS)
which is designed especially for ClearCase.  The file system will not
allow a chmod operation from a regular user to succeed because in a
ClearCase world you shouldn't be allowed to modify the file without
checking it out with a "ct co" operation, and the FS is designed to not
let you do this.

If you are using the VOB admin account then *maybe* you might be able to
chmod the thing (since the files are owned by the admin account), but
even then probably not, because when you try to do it as a mere mortal
you get a "Read-only file system" error (I tried it just for kicks).
Like I said, I'm pretty sure the FS won't let you do it no matter who
you are (not even as root).

On a snapshot view on Windows, you can chmod the files willy-nilly to
your heart's content because the FS is NTFS and NTFS will let you do
whatever you want.  ClearCase has no way of stopping this because they
don't control the FS.  Not sure as to the behaviour of dynamic views on
Windows as they are so slow that we don't use them.

Anyway, back to UNIX... Even if you could chmod a file in a dynamic
view, it is DYNAMIC, so I don't think touching the file will work,
because the file is dynamically served from the ClearCase server
according to your config spec.  It doesn't reside locally.  Hence, I
think you could probably touch it to your heart's content and it would
still show a modified time of whenever the last check-in was because
when the server gives it to you dynamically, it's going to give you what
it has stored, and that includes file modification and access times.

If you don't care about supporting ClearCase though, then feel free to
ignore all of this :-)

___________________________________________
 
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
IDE Frameworks Group
Texas Instruments, Toronto
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Alex Chapiro
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:30 AM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] New generated makefile pattern
> 
> Eclipse API permits to do it for any IFile object. As long as Eclipe
is
> portable, you can do it in any OS Eclipse is able to run.
> 
> Recoskie, Chris wrote:
> 
> >Can you can hijack a file that way in a ClearCase dynamic view on
UNIX
> >though?  I'm thinking MVFS won't let you...
> >
> >Time for me to shut up and let the Rational guys handle this one
> >methinks.
> >
> >:-)
> >
> >___________________________________________
> >
> >Chris Recoskie
> >Software Designer
> >IDE Frameworks Group
> >Texas Instruments, Toronto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> >>Behalf Of Alex Chapiro
> >>Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 5:18 PM
> >>To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] New generated makefile pattern
> >>
> >>StarTeam is another example (one of our major customers uses it). We
> >>just set  read-only flag off at the moment of touching, then restore
> >>
> >>
> >it.
> >
> >
> >>Not necessary to do it with CVS.
> >>
> >>Douglas Schaefer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ouch. How would that work in a scenario where you do not have write
> >>>permission to the files that have to be built, e.g., in a ClearCase
> >>>dynamic view?
> >>>
> >>>Doug Schaefer, IBM's Eclipse CDT Architect
> >>>Ottawa (Palladium), Ontario, Canada
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Alex Chapiro <achapiro@xxxxxxx>
> >>>Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>05/19/2004 04:28 PM
> >>>Please respond to
> >>>cdt-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>To
> >>>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>cc
> >>>
> >>>Subject
> >>>Re: [cdt-dev] New generated makefile pattern
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sean Evoy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Chris,
> >>>>There are two basic extension I am thinking about; a makefile
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >generator
> >
> >
> >>>>that you can supply in the toolchain, and dependency calculators
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >that
> >
> >
> >>>>you can supply with a tool. They have to interact to get the deps
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>right.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Optionally they can avoid interaction, as in our implementation of
> >>>dependency checker which just touches files that has to be rebuild
> >>>
> >>>
> >and
> >
> >
> >>>relies on the standard make dependency checking rules.
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>cdt-dev mailing list
> >>>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>cdt-dev mailing list
> >>>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>cdt-dev mailing list
> >>cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >>
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >cdt-dev mailing list
> >cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev