| 1 |
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 10:09:23 Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The problem with these is that they are executable scripts, e.g. a user |
| 4 |
> > could expect them to be able to run, IMO. Solving this can be done by |
| 5 |
> > fixing the shebang (as for the first two cases), adding a runtime |
| 6 |
> > dependency (for the last case), or by removing the executable bit of the |
| 7 |
> > scripts so they no longer can be run, and they merely become |
| 8 |
> > examples/documentation. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Should there ever be executable scripts in /usr/share? If the |
| 11 |
> consensus is 'no', could portage remove the +x bit automatically? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
i dont see anything wrong with +x in /usr/share in general. they're shell |
| 14 |
scripts and thus platform independent, so /usr/share is the place for them to |
| 15 |
live. packages may internally execute these things, so blindly stripping +x |
| 16 |
bits sounds like a bit idea. |
| 17 |
-mike |
Archives