On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently, we added a new QA check in Gentoo Prefix' Portage to check > shebangs (the #! things) of scripts before they are installed. We > basically did this simply because we don't want to use say > /usr/bin/perl and because this executable might not exist (e.g. on > vanilla FreeBSD). Even if it does exist, we still don't want to use it, > since we installed a newer/better version, that also can find the > installed packages. This basically does not affect Gentoo Linux, > however, we do run into several other cases right now that do affect > Gentoo Linux: > > - shebangs like #!python, these are invalid and used by some python > packages > - shebangs like #!/usr/local/bin/python, this is not a good idea, used > IIRC by python itself > - shebangs like #!/bin/csh or #!/bin/tcsh that are correct in itself, > but basically need tcsh to be installed to run, e.g. vim does this > > 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? Other distros debate about +x in /usr/share/doc too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487527#c3 - From what I gather, other distros decided that they can be +x if they work properly (meaning, proper dependencies) > > Should we start filing bugs on these issues? In the end, they are > broken scripts on the system. Is there interest for porting the Prefix > shebang QA check to normal Portage? > > > -- > Fabian Groffen > Gentoo on a different level > >
