Should we have programs with executable permissions in the distro

[Will Coleda]

On Monday, August 2, 2010, Todd Olson <tco2 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> On 2010-Aug-01, at 09:34, Vasily Chekalkin wrote:
>
>>>> Does it have any disadvantage to set it from "#! perl" to
>>>> "#!/usr/bin/perl"?
>>>>
>>>> Also: "#! parrot"  ->  "#!/usr/bin/parrot"
>>>>
>>>> This is my favorite.
>>>
>>> Surely the #! for perl should be the path of the perl used to run Configure.pl,
>>> and the #! for parrot be the path parrot will be installed to?
>>>
>>> /usr/bin/perl and /usr/bin/parrot may not even exist.
>>
>> Indeed. What about "#!/usr/bin/env perl"? I'm not sure how it works on Windows.
>
> Causes problems when multiple versions of perl are installed,
> such as one for system level things and one for an application running on the system.
> It also complicated phased upgrades of on a running system perl.
>
> Regards,
> Todd
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
>

We should do the bare minimum that works, as I think eventually we'll
install no p5 programs.

1) If we install them non-executable, then the shebang doesn't really matter.

2) If we /do/ install them executable, then we should use Nicholas's
suggestion of rewriting the shebang line. (which is nifty, but
requires more work than option 1, which is why I didn't originally
suggest it).


If we're instead talking about them living /in the build directory/, I
could see moving them all to .in files and putting in the path to the
perl-you-configure'd with in the shebang, and moving them in place at
config time.