Shebang diff

Shebang diff

[Bart Schaefer]

I just spotted this ChangeLog entry:

+2008-02-07  Clint Adams  <clint@zsh.org>
+
+	* unposted: Functions/Misc/run-help-git,
+	Functions/Calendar/calendar_add, Functions/Misc/sticky-note: remove
+	shebang line.

Functions/Misc/sticky-note is explicitly designed to be runnable as a
standalone script.  Removing the #! line was IMO wrong.

Re: Shebang diff

[Peter Stephenson]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:38:22 -0800
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> I just spotted this ChangeLog entry:
> 
> +2008-02-07  Clint Adams  <clint@zsh.org>
> +
> +	* unposted: Functions/Misc/run-help-git,
> +	Functions/Calendar/calendar_add, Functions/Misc/sticky-note: remove
> +	shebang line.
> 
> Functions/Misc/sticky-note is explicitly designed to be runnable as a
> standalone script.  Removing the #! line was IMO wrong.

Actually, the same is true of calendar_add:  it's most useful when
executed from an external programme that's managing called as a backend
to processing calendars in mail.  However, Clint's point, which is
reasonable, was that the files in question are being installed into the
function area, not into the path.  If we wanted to make proper
arrangements for them to be called directly, we should both install them
into the path and make them executable at that point, rather than rely
on them being executable from where they are.  So I think rather than
changing the permissions again, if we're interested in doing something
more with ambivalent scripts/functions it would be better to provide
some utility to fix things. 

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/

Re: Shebang diff

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 17,  4:23pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Shebang diff
}
} On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:38:22 -0800
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
} > Functions/Misc/sticky-note is explicitly designed to be runnable as a
} > standalone script.  Removing the #! line was IMO wrong.
} 
} If we wanted to make proper arrangements for them to be called
} directly, we should both install them into the path and make them
} executable at that point, rather than rely on them being executable
} from where they are. So I think rather than changing the permissions
} again, if we're interested in doing something more with ambivalent
} scripts/functions it would be better to provide some utility to fix
} things.

I'm not concerned with the file permissions; I don't care whether or
not they have the execute bit set.  I just don't want the #! removed.
Running chmod to "install" the script is one thing, but having to edit
the file is another entirely.

Re: Shebang diff

[Clint Adams]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:50:05PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> I'm not concerned with the file permissions; I don't care whether or
> not they have the execute bit set.  I just don't want the #! removed.
> Running chmod to "install" the script is one thing, but having to edit
> the file is another entirely.

You're invoking $fndir/Misc/sticky-note with a full pathname?

Re: Shebang diff

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 21,  9:54pm, Clint Adams wrote:
} Subject: Re: Shebang diff
}
} On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:50:05PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > I'm not concerned with the file permissions; I don't care whether or
} > not they have the execute bit set.  I just don't want the #! removed.
} > Running chmod to "install" the script is one thing, but having to edit
} > the file is another entirely.
} 
} You're invoking $fndir/Misc/sticky-note with a full pathname?

No ... my point was that

cp $^fpath/sticky-note(N) ~/bin
chmod +x ~/bin/sticky-note

is a lot less of a PITA than

cp $^fpath/sticky-note(N) ~/bin
vi ~/bin/sticky-note
O#!/bin/zsh -fiESC:wq
chmod +x ~/bin/sticky-note

especially given that it's non-obvious that "-fi" is necessary in order
for it to work correctly.

It's entirely possible that there's a better place than Functions/Misc/
to put scripts like this, but that place doesn't exist yet in the tree.

Re: Shebang diff

[Clint Adams]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:01:13PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> It's entirely possible that there's a better place than Functions/Misc/
> to put scripts like this, but that place doesn't exist yet in the tree.

What about the scriptdir which contains newuser?

Re: Shebang diff

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 22, 10:56am, Clint Adams wrote:
} Subject: Re: Shebang diff
}
} On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:01:13PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > It's entirely possible that there's a better place than Functions/Misc/
} > to put scripts like this, but that place doesn't exist yet in the tree.
} 
} What about the scriptdir which contains newuser?

That's for "source"-able scripts, not executable ones.

Re: Shebang diff

[Bart Schaefer]

On Feb 22,  9:20am, Bart Schaefer wrote:
}
} On Feb 22, 10:56am, Clint Adams wrote:
} }
} } On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 08:01:13PM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
} } > It's entirely possible that there's a better place than Functions/Misc/
} } > to put scripts like this, but that place doesn't exist yet in the tree.
} } 
} } What about the scriptdir which contains newuser?
} 
} That's for "source"-able scripts, not executable ones.

This raises a question:  Why *isn't* it StartupFiles/newuser rather than
Scripts/newuser?

Then we could put sticky-note, zkbd, zcalc, and maybe checkmail and
harden, into Scripts/.  They'd still have to get installed into $fpath,
though ...

There's also run-help, which has a #! line although I'd be surprised if
anyone ever runs it as a script.  I'm *sure* that needs to be installed
into $fpath.

Re: Shebang diff

[Peter Stephenson]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:31:19 -0800
> This raises a question:  Why *isn't* it StartupFiles/newuser rather than
> Scripts/newuser?

There was never really intended to be a hard difference.  It could just
as well be there.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
Web page now at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.w.stephenson/

Re: Shebang diff

[Clint Adams]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 11:38:22AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> Functions/Misc/sticky-note is explicitly designed to be runnable as a
> standalone script.  Removing the #! line was IMO wrong.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 04:23:13PM +0000, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> Actually, the same is true of calendar_add:  it's most useful when
> executed from an external programme that's managing called as a backend
> to processing calendars in mail.  However, Clint's point, which is
> reasonable, was that the files in question are being installed into the
> function area, not into the path.  If we wanted to make proper
> arrangements for them to be called directly, we should both install them
> into the path and make them executable at that point, rather than rely
> on them being executable from where they are.  So I think rather than
> changing the permissions again, if we're interested in doing something
> more with ambivalent scripts/functions it would be better to provide
> some utility to fix things. 

I didn't think this would be controversial, but

Index: Functions/Calendar/calendar_add
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Functions/Calendar/calendar_add,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -r1.9 calendar_add
--- Functions/Calendar/calendar_add	19 Feb 2008 14:59:53 -0000	1.9
+++ Functions/Calendar/calendar_add	22 Feb 2008 02:49:33 -0000
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#!/bin/zsh
 # All arguments are joined with spaces and inserted into the calendar
 # file at the appropriate point.
 #
Index: Functions/Misc/sticky-note
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/zsh/zsh/Functions/Misc/sticky-note,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.3 sticky-note
--- Functions/Misc/sticky-note	7 Feb 2008 02:11:00 -0000	1.3
+++ Functions/Misc/sticky-note	22 Feb 2008 02:49:33 -0000
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#!/bin/zsh -fi
 # A little zsh sticky-note ("post-it") application.  Sticky notes are
 # stored in the file named by the STICKYFILE variable (defaults to
 # $HOME/.zsticky).  The number of notes stored is STICKYSIZE (1000).