[gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 244 bytes --]

Anyone have a reason why we have files w/ +x set in the tree?
Being paranoid/anal, but the bit isn't really needed.  If executable is
needed, set it when transferring the file out of ${FILESDIR} during the
install stage.
Thoughts?
~brian

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 30 June 2004 04:24 am, Brian Harring wrote:
> Anyone have a reason why we have files w/ +x set in the tree?
> Being paranoid/anal, but the bit isn't really needed.  If executable is
> needed, set it when transferring the file out of ${FILESDIR} during the
> install stage.

i think when the file should be executable, it should be stored with a +x, but 
otherwise it shouldnt ...

for example, every once in a while ebuilds/digests/metadatas/licenses pop up 
with +x on them and there's no real way to clear it short of removing/adding 
the file or having the cvs admin clear it
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 19:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i think when the file should be executable, it should be stored with a +x, but 
> otherwise it shouldnt ...

I don't see a problem with that, but would have to agree with Brian,
that since nothing in the portage tree is meant to be executed, nothing
in the tree should be executable.  If an ebuild does not set the
executable bit, that is a bug in the ebuild and should be resolved.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer
Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 30 June 2004 09:07 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I don't see a problem with that, but would have to agree with Brian,
> that since nothing in the portage tree is meant to be executed, nothing
> in the tree should be executable.  If an ebuild does not set the
> executable bit, that is a bug in the ebuild and should be resolved.

no, nothing really 'needs' to be executable (except maybe the directory 
explicitly labeled scripts :P), but there's no real reason to take a harsh 
stance against +x
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[Brian Harring]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Jun 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Wednesday 30 June 2004 04:24 am, Brian Harring wrote:
>> Anyone have a reason why we have files w/ +x set in the tree?
>> Being paranoid/anal, but the bit isn't really needed.  If executable 
>> is
>> needed, set it when transferring the file out of ${FILESDIR} during 
>> the
>> install stage.
>
> i think when the file should be executable, it should be stored with a 
> +x, but
> otherwise it shouldnt ...

All files being transfered out of filesdir that needs +x is quite 
likely being installed via newexe/doexe, which installs with the 
appropriate permissions already.
Any ebuild *not* using newexe/doexe for installing binaries ought to be 
fixed, since assuming the permissions for files in the tree are correct 
isn't sane.
So the actual permissions of the files in the tree don't matter :)

> for example, every once in a while ebuilds/digests/metadatas/licenses 
> pop up
> with +x on them and there's no real way to clear it short of 
> removing/adding
> the file or having the cvs admin clear it

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55647

has a patch to make repoman check up on the permissions- ebuild's w/ +x 
are marked as failures, files w/ +x are marked as warnings.
~brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFA42W0vdBxRoA3VU0RAqf3AKC480K3H4q+qAa1CHpcNncEhjUnHQCgtirY
d3g9F77HcUNpVIYSf6O9zEE=
=178l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[George Shapovalov]

On Wednesday 30 June 2004 18:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 June 2004 09:07 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I don't see a problem with that, but would have to agree with Brian,
> > that since nothing in the portage tree is meant to be executed, nothing
> > in the tree should be executable.  If an ebuild does not set the
> > executable bit, that is a bug in the ebuild and should be resolved.
>
> no, nothing really 'needs' to be executable (except maybe the directory
> explicitly labeled scripts :P), but there's no real reason to take a harsh
> stance against +x
> -mike
Except that expecting a certain file to maintain a +x is not very reliable  
(at least as it looks from such conversations :)), so I would agree that it 
should better be avoided in ebuilds, and the correct permissions (if 
required) should be explicitly set when necessary.

George


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] files w/ +x in the tree

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 30 June 2004 09:25 pm, George Shapovalov wrote:
> Except that expecting a certain file to maintain a +x is not very reliable
> (at least as it looks from such conversations :)), so I would agree that it
> should better be avoided in ebuilds, and the correct permissions (if
> required) should be explicitly set when necessary.

i didnt say we should rely on it ... but for the most part, it 'prevents' 
confusing output ...

put a script in $FILESDIR and chmod +x it ... then run `dobin` on it in 
src_install() ... take the +x off and do that again ...
notice the first lacks stupid warning output
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list