| 1 |
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 18:09, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 30 June 2004 09:07 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I don't see a problem with that, but would have to agree with Brian, |
| 4 |
> > that since nothing in the portage tree is meant to be executed, nothing |
| 5 |
> > in the tree should be executable. If an ebuild does not set the |
| 6 |
> > executable bit, that is a bug in the ebuild and should be resolved. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> no, nothing really 'needs' to be executable (except maybe the directory |
| 9 |
> explicitly labeled scripts :P), but there's no real reason to take a harsh |
| 10 |
> stance against +x |
| 11 |
> -mike |
| 12 |
Except that expecting a certain file to maintain a +x is not very reliable |
| 13 |
(at least as it looks from such conversations :)), so I would agree that it |
| 14 |
should better be avoided in ebuilds, and the correct permissions (if |
| 15 |
required) should be explicitly set when necessary. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
George |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives