On 06/17/2015 03:24 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 6/17/15, 13:53, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2015-06-17 14:47:48 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
+1 both to using -x and to removing the shebang.
Agreed. We don't want anyone directly invoking this file as an
executable
On 6/17/15, 13:53, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2015-06-17 14:47:48 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
+1 both to using -x and to removing the shebang.
Agreed. We don't want anyone directly invoking this file as an
executable script in PBR-based packages, so I'm strongly in
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2015-06-18 06:40:33 +1200:
An unintended side effect of the requirements refactoring was that we
changed from preserving the 'x' bit on setup.py, to discarding it.
This happened when we started writing the file atomically rather than
in-place - a good
On 2015-06-17 14:47:48 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
+1 both to using -x and to removing the shebang.
Agreed. We don't want anyone directly invoking this file as an
executable script in PBR-based packages, so I'm strongly in favor of
anything we can do to actively discourage that.
--
An unintended side effect of the requirements refactoring was that we
changed from preserving the 'x' bit on setup.py, to discarding it.
This happened when we started writing the file atomically rather than
in-place - a good robustness improvement.
Previously the requirements sync, which enforces
+1 both to using -x and to removing the shebang.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2015-06-18 06:40:33 +1200:
An unintended side effect of the requirements refactoring was that we
changed from preserving the
