On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:47:16AM -0000, Michał Sawicz wrote:
> I agree not all of the files should be made exec (I'll fix that in my
> PR), but for known hook names, to me it feels like an equivalent of
>
> install -m 755 …
I like this approach a lot more. Thanks.
> The problem is that when you check the code out onto a filesystem that
> doesn't support `chmod +x` (think NTFS partition), snapcraft will just
> error out and you can't do anything about it.
Heh, this worry can lead to crazy things like text-mode FTP. :)
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:47:16AM -0000, Michał Sawicz wrote:
> I agree not all of the files should be made exec (I'll fix that in my
> PR), but for known hook names, to me it feels like an equivalent of
>
> install -m 755 …
I like this approach a lot more. Thanks.
> The problem is that when you check the code out onto a filesystem that
> doesn't support `chmod +x` (think NTFS partition), snapcraft will just
> error out and you can't do anything about it.
Heh, this worry can lead to crazy things like text-mode FTP. :)
Thanks