On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:12:28, Houder wrote: > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 19:09:04, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] via cygwin" > wrote: > > > zero-sized? Irrelevant. > > > > It is actually very relevant. Because executing an empty script results in= > > "success" (exit code 0) -- that creates a false-positive. [snip]
> What I meant, was: a regular file (empty or not), but w/o shebang and w/o the > execute bit, will be executed by Cygwin, contrary to what happens on Unix. > > This behaviour (again: different from Unix) has existed for at least a decade. > > That is why I wrote: Cygwin != Linux. > > When I found out, years and years ago, I assumed that the deviation was due > to FAT filesystems (not being able to represent the x-bit). > > Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps the Cygwin maintainers merely goofed up long ago. And again I was wrong ... - https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-06/msg00721.html ( Re: Cygwin 1.7: Possible file permission errors in 'base-files' ) "I've put that on my TODO list." - https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-06/msg00727.html ( HEADSUP maintainers: Packages install scripts without execute permissions ) "I have the patch for this ready ..." Now that the problem has been fixed by Corinna, she can remove it from her TODO list :-P Henri -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
