dumb question

[Ed Greshko]

On 01/04/2012 03:36 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
> Thanks for prompt reply. By this I am assuming that a
> Makefile/makefile and its contents are not deemed a mandatory
> executable as opposed to a *.sh? I am unclear as to what is happening
> under the hood as I thought anything that "executes" needs to be "+x"? 

Makefile doesn't execute....  the "make" command executes.  As I
mentioned, Makefile is just input to make (a.k.a. /usr/bin/make).

I don't know what you mean by *.sh since the concept of extensions
doesn't exist under Linux.  But you may also be interested to know that
"shell" scripts (or files containing shell scripts) need not be executable.

[egreshko at meimei bin]$ ll killfox
-rwxrwxr-x. 1 egreshko egreshko 63 May 25  2011 killfox
[egreshko at meimei bin]$ ./killfox
firefox-bin: no process found
plugin-container: no process found

But also....

[egreshko at meimei bin]$ chmod -x killfox
[egreshko at meimei bin]$ ll killfox
-rw-rw-r--. 1 egreshko egreshko 63 May 25  2011 killfox
[egreshko at meimei bin]$ sh ./killfox
firefox-bin: no process found
plugin-container: no process found


-- 
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools. -- Douglas Adams in "Mostly Harmless