On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:38:31 -0800
Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/28/16 1:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I don't think they do that anymore. Today, the de facto recommendation
> > from GNU would be automake, which installs all executables 0755. Here bash
> > stands out as doing something possibly w
On 11/28/16 1:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> I don't think they do that anymore. Today, the de facto recommendation
> from GNU would be automake, which installs all executables 0755. Here bash
> stands out as doing something possibly wrong.
I disagree that it's wrong, per se. Certainly there's no
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:25:12 -0800
Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/27/16 1:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While scanning our systems for executables that are installed u-w, I've
> > noticed this specific mode is used for bashbug explicitly. Is there
> > a good reason for doing that?
>
>
On 11/27/16 1:35 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While scanning our systems for executables that are installed u-w, I've
> noticed this specific mode is used for bashbug explicitly. Is there
> a good reason for doing that?
Well, twenty years ago when the two installation modes were introduced,
Michał Górny wrote:
Hi,
While scanning our systems for executables that are installed u-w, I've
noticed this specific mode is used for bashbug explicitly. Is there
a good reason for doing that?
---
Doesn't it have execute permission? But it seems semi normal
for a system-"executable" t
Hi,
While scanning our systems for executables that are installed u-w, I've
noticed this specific mode is used for bashbug explicitly. Is there
a good reason for doing that?
This normally doesn't cause any major issues, except for a few minor
inconveniences when installed by a regular user. For e
