Re: Rationale behind script-not-executable lintian warning
- To: Debian Lintian Maintainers <lintian-maint@debian.org>
- Cc: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Rationale behind script-not-executable lintian warning
- From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:25:27 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 86y82dmi88.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
- In-reply-to: <1135251272.11763.56.camel@darwin.os9.nl> (Thijs Kinkhorst's message of "Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:34:32 +0100")
- References: <8664pi9z60.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch> <20051221174154.GG3737@pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl> <200512221021.50962.cobaco@linux.be> <20051222112532.GA11331@pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl> <1135251272.11763.56.camel@darwin.os9.nl>
Hi lintian maintainers,
Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 12:25 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>> Then it seems logical to me that an override would be in order. However, I
>> don't understand what the check is for, if not for cases like these. So my
>> logic may very well be incorrect.
>
> Many tests document a short rationale in their description; it would be
> good to add this for tests where it doesn't exist. For example by
> sending patches to the BTS.
Good idea, but first we should know the rationale.
The warning we are talking about is
W: tetex-base: script-not-executable ./usr/share/texmf-tetex/scripts/context/ruby/texmfstart.rb
N:
N: This file starts with the #! sequence that marks interpreted scripts,
N: but it is not executable.
N:
In this particular case, upstream decided that the script should contain
a shebang line (and a couple of possible reasons for this have been
given on -mentors), and I'm wondering why lintian doesn't like it like
this. The script is not meant to be executed on a Debian system, just
called internally, so there's no need for the shebang line; but I also
don't see the need for removing it, thus cluttering the diff.gz with
useless hunks.
Or not so useless as I'd like to learn from you.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: