Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'm confused why it matters. write_script() unconditionally calls "chmod
> +x", doesn't it?
Yeah, that was exactly my thought, too. Sorry for not noticing that
this depended the "interpreter" exactly be /bin/sh, though (it is
not even executed).
> I just double-checked its definition in test-lib-function.sh; am I
> missing some Windows-specific magic that kicks in?
>
>> So why not just prefix it with `SHELL_PATH=/bin/sh`?
>
> But then what is write_script buying us?
The correct way to write a script for a specific interpreter is to
give a second parameter to write_script, i.e.
write_script exec.sh /bin/sh </dev/null &&
and the answer to the question is "it will save us one line".
The version in 'master' that does
echo "#!/bin/sh" >exec.sh &&
chmod +x exec.sh &&
should be equivalent, so dropping that hunk from the patch is the
right resolution perhaps?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html