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