Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> writes: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> writes:
>>> [Relying on source-code execute bits always being correctly maintained >>> is one of those things that ... well... doesn't really feel very robust. >>> I dunno, maybe it's just me...] >> Doesn't every package with a configure script rely on this? I suppose >> that people could chmod +x the configure script before running it, but >> I've never had to do that. > Not all operating systems support the notion of "execute bits", including > the most popular operating system. The context of this branch of the discussion was about whether it was necessary to call chmod +x on a distributed script. That isn't going to work on the most popular operating systme either. My answer was assuming a context in which the chmod +x operation would be meaningful. I could have made that clearer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
