On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:09 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:57 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:46 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > When the shebang is to allow running some sort of unittest I generally just
> > > leave it alone (the end user won't want to run it and upstream does want to
> > > run the code when they're testing).
> > There is still no reason to have a shebang on a non-executable file.
> > The file must have started out executable in order for upstream to run
> > it. The proper solution would be to remove the shebang in the same
> > place the executability gets removed.
> another option is to not flag things which impact NOT AT ALL
Well, the test's just a test. It's not magic. It doesn't *know* whether
they affect functionality. The test is obviously designed to catch the
case where the packager screws up and doesn't mark a script that
actually _needs_ to be executable as executable. Just because in this
case it happens that these scripts don't need to be executable, doesn't
mean that's always the case.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
devel mailing list