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 > functionality :) 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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
