HEADSUP maintainers: Packages install scripts without execute ?permissions

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jun 22 13:58, Eric Blake wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at> cygwin.com> writes:
> 
> > >   Why don't we just remove the "-c" and get setup.exe to use the 
> simple "bash
> > > <filename>" syntax meaning "treat <filename> as a text file, open it and 
> pipe
> > > it to stdin"?
> > 
> > I already suggested this on the cygwin-developers ML back in May (*)
> > but it was not discussed overly enthusiastic (**) (***).
> 
> Indeed - changing things to be 'bash script' instead of the current 'bash -c 
> script' would make the use of alternative interpreters harder.  But it does not 
> make it impossible; you can always do:
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> /bin/awk <<\EOF
> ...
> EOF
> 
> instead of
> 
> #!/bin/awk
> ...
> 
> For that matter, are there any postinstall scripts currently relying on a 
> different interpreter?  If not, then I'm in favor of the idea of changing 
> setup.exe to be immune to the execute bit on postinstall scripts, at the 
> expense of making postinstall scripts locked into bash (at least, as the 
> initial interpreter).

There can be only *.bat and *.sh files in /etc/postinstall and
/etc/preremove.  *.bat files are started via `cmd /c file' and *.sh
files are started via `bash --norc --noprofile -c file'.  So we sort of
require a script to be a sh/bash script anyway right now.  Admittedly, I
did not actually *look* into all postinstall/preremove scripts in the
distro.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple