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