Re: dealing with executable shell scripts

[Russ Allbery]

Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Miles Bader <address@hidden> 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 (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>