Request for review: Store convenience scripts as executable

[Stuart Marks]

What's problematic about executables?

Certainly we want to avoid storing actual binary executables in repos.

I've also seen problems on other projects where Windows clients had stored 
files (perhaps via Samba) on Unix systems and the files ended up getting their 
execute bits set. I agree, this is really irritating, since 'ls' and various 
file managers will flag them as such or show them in a different color, etc.

On the other hand, running "sh ./some_script.sh" is also problematic, as "sh" 
is different shells on different systems, e.g. it's the SysV Bourne shell on 
older Solaris, possibly ksh93 on newer Solaris, dash on Ubuntu, and bash on 
MacOS. Executing the scripts directly allows each script to declare which shell 
it actually needs.

It would be nice if we could relax the "no executables" rule, perhaps by 
allowing execute bits to appear on files that have a .sh suffix, or something.

s'marks



On 7/20/11 8:33 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> Although the jcheck extension isn't publicly available (it will be someday), it is used on the servers
> and by developers. That extension disallows ANY file from having execute permissions.
> So this changeset would get blocked, or create havoc for the developers.
>
> In general, placing execute permission on files has been problematic and we decided a long time ago
> that executables were not welcome in the OpenJDK repositories, and the easiest way to try and block them
> was by looking at the execute permissions.
>
> All these *.sh scripts can be run with "sh", e.g. "sh ./get_source.sh" so I don't see this as a huge burden.
>
> -kto
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 2:47 AM, Neil Richards wrote:
>
>> Sometimes, it's the most petty things that can cause an itch.
>>
>> There are a small number of convenience scripts which are currently held
>> within the repository without being marked as executable.
>>
>> So to use them (for each clone of the repository one may have), one has
>> to go round manually setting the executable bit, which is a little sad,
>> as mercurial is perfectly capable of remembering that these things
>> should be executable.
>>
>> To that end, please find below the most trivial of changes, to store
>> these scripts with their executable bit set.
>>
>> Please consider this change for committal.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Neil
>>
>> --
>> Unless stated above:
>> IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com
>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>>
>>
>> # HG changeset patch
>> # User Neil Richards<neil.richards at ngmr.net>,<neil_richards at uk.ibm.com>
>> # Date 1311153869 -3600
>> # Branch ojdk-144
>> # Node ID 090ad60f2b03c1b806258e5a75a0fd15963df9e0
>> # Parent  05e24d6ed56dce501b5b8633d2fe7c3725354257
>> Summary: Store convenience scripts as executable
>> Contributed-by:<neil.richards at ngmr.net>
>>
>> diff --git a/get_source.sh b/get_source.sh
>> old mode 100644
>> new mode 100755
>> diff --git a/make/scripts/hgforest.sh b/make/scripts/hgforest.sh
>> old mode 100644
>> new mode 100755
>> diff --git a/make/scripts/update_copyright_year.sh b/make/scripts/update_copyright_year.sh
>> old mode 100644
>> new mode 100755
>> diff --git a/make/scripts/vsvars.sh b/make/scripts/vsvars.sh
>> old mode 100644
>> new mode 100755
>> diff --git a/make/scripts/webrev.ksh b/make/scripts/webrev.ksh
>> old mode 100644
>> new mode 100755
>>
>>
>