On Wednesday 23 September 2009 03:53:43 Fabian Groffen wrote:
Should we start filing bugs on these issues? In the end, they are
broken scripts on the system. Is there interest for porting the Prefix
shebang QA check to normal Portage?
for the shell dependency issue, a review bug may be
On Wednesday 23 September 2009 10:09:23 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem with these is that they are executable scripts, e.g. a user
could expect them to be able to run, IMO. Solving this can be done by
fixing the
Hi all,
Recently, we added a new QA check in Gentoo Prefix' Portage to check
shebangs (the #! things) of scripts before they are installed. We
basically did this simply because we don't want to use say
/usr/bin/perl and because this executable might not exist (e.g. on
vanilla FreeBSD). Even if
Fabian Groffen wrote:
Should we start filing bugs on these issues? In the end, they are
broken scripts on the system. Is there interest for porting the Prefix
shebang QA check to normal Portage?
Sounds useful to me, my vote for it.
Sebastian
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi all,
Recently, we added a new QA check in Gentoo Prefix' Portage to check
shebangs (the #! things) of scripts before they are installed. We
basically did this simply because we don't want to use say
/usr/bin/perl
