On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:21:46AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:41, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > If it is meant to be executed, it should be executable. > agreed > > > If it is not, it should not have the shebang line. > > I disagree, there's nothing wrong with clearly documenting what shell > variant a script is written in, on the contrary IMHO > > Also note that lintian already excludes several locations from this warning > (such as /etc/X11/Xsession.d/). Hmm, in that case the lintian maintainers appearantly agree that scripts which are only sourced may have the shebang. 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. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature