| 1 |
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:41:17 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jonas Stein <jstein@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Dear all, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> if we compress an executable script |
| 7 |
> hello.sh |
| 8 |
> with bzip2 or gzip the result is a file |
| 9 |
> hello.sh.bz2 or hello.sh.gz |
| 10 |
> with executable permissions. However it is not executable, of course. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ./hello.sh.bz2 |
| 13 |
> "cannot execute binary file: Exec format error" |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> One can not blame bzip2 for it, because it is exactly what its man |
| 16 |
> page writes: |
| 17 |
> "Each compressed file has the same modification date, permissions, |
| 18 |
> and, when possible, ownership as the corresponding original, so that |
| 19 |
> these properties can be correctly restored at decompression time." |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> On gentoo systems we can find many archives with with executable bit |
| 22 |
> by running |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> $ find /usr/share/doc/ -executable -type f |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> * Is it proper to install compressed archives (.zip, .gz, .bz2) |
| 28 |
> with executable permissions? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> * Should we compress executable files at all? |
| 31 |
> (Example scripts are usually very small.) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> * Should we remove the executable permission of example scripts |
| 34 |
> anyway, because the user should not execute it directly, but |
| 35 |
> rather see it as example? The user reads it, copies and modifies |
| 36 |
> it and then sets the +x. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> I am interested in your comments and wish you a nice Sunday. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
yeah, makes sense to drop +x, it is better to look at the examples |
| 43 |
before running them blindly. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives