Russ Allbery wrote: > > This has been discussed before and the general consensus that I recall > from previous discussions is that such scripts should either be marked > executable or have that line removed if they really can't be executed > independently. Limiting the check to /usr/bin can miss cases where the > non-executability (due to a buggy install script, for instance) breaks the > package because it can't execute its helper scripts, so I'm not horribly > enthused about changing the test itself. It's actually more likely for > packages to have problems with helper scripts in /usr/share than with the > regular binaries in /usr/bin. > Are there not also cases where you might have something in /usr/lib or /usr/share that should not be executed directly by the user, but that can be executed by another utility from the same package? I forget which package(s), but I seem to recall one or more which place "helpers" in /usr/lib or /usr/share and they are executable becuase they can be executed directly. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature