| 1 |
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 09:07 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't see a problem with that, but would have to agree with Brian, |
| 3 |
> that since nothing in the portage tree is meant to be executed, nothing |
| 4 |
> in the tree should be executable. If an ebuild does not set the |
| 5 |
> executable bit, that is a bug in the ebuild and should be resolved. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
no, nothing really 'needs' to be executable (except maybe the directory |
| 8 |
explicitly labeled scripts :P), but there's no real reason to take a harsh |
| 9 |
stance against +x |
| 10 |
-mike |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
-- |
| 13 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives