Bug#19305: expect5.24: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb LI#40
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, David Engel wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 1998 at 08:11:12PM -0000, schwarz@debian.novare.net wrote:
<snip>
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/autoexpect.gz
> >
> > This executable file is not an ELF format binary, and does not start
> > with the #! sequence that marks interpreted scripts. It might be a sh
> > script that fails to name /bin/sh as its shell.
> >
> > Have a look at Policy Manual, section 3.3.4 for details.
> >
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/autopasswd.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/cryptdir.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/decryptdir.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/dislocate.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/ftp-rfc.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/kibitz.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/lpunlock.gz
> > W: expect5.24: executable-not-elf-or-script usr/doc/expect5.24/examples/mkpasswd.gz
> > [same message reported 12 more times]
>
> These are all example scripts. Should they not be compressed?
There is no use for them to be executable if they are compressed, is
there? IMHO they should be either compressed or executable, but not both.
Remco
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: