> While working on Fedora gcc 9 rpm, I've noticed a couple of messages: > *** WARNING: > ./usr/src/debug/gcc-9.0.0-0.1.fc29.x86_64/libphobos/libdruntime/core/sys/po > six/sys/ioccom.d is executable but has empty or no shebang, *** WARNING: > ./usr/src/debug/gcc-9.0.0-0.1.fc29.x86_64/libphobos/libdruntime/core/sys/po > six/sys/ttycom.d is executable but has empty or no shebang, *** WARNING: > ./usr/src/debug/gcc-9.0.0-0.1.fc29.x86_64/gcc/ada/set_targ.ads is > executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit *** > WARNING: ./usr/src/debug/gcc-9.0.0-0.1.fc29.x86_64/gcc/ada/set_targ.adb is > executable but has empty or no shebang, removing executable bit *** > WARNING: > ./usr/src/debug/gcc-9.0.0-0.1.fc29.x86_64/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/san > itizer_common_interceptors_ioctl.inc is executable but has empty or no > shebang, removing executable bit
Typically (not for the sanitizer) because the files were created on Windows. > None of these files look like executable, any objections against (found > through > find [^o]* -type f -a -executable | xargs grep -L '^#!' > and removed from the list some ELF/Mach-O executables in the libgo (which > maybe shouldn't be executable anyway, we don't want people to run it when > they don't really know what it contains))? Do the libgo and/or > libphobos changes need to go through upstream first? > I've checked libsanitizer upstream and > sanitizer_common_interceptors_ioctl.inc isn't executable there. No objections for the couple of Ada files. -- Eric Botcazou
