dumb question

[Paul Allen Newell]

[inline]

On 1/4/2012 12:06 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 03:59 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
>> Though I really appreciate both of your replies, I am looking at them
>> and seeing that Marvin is saying it needs to be "+x" and Ed is saying
>> it doesn't. I ran a test and "-x" seems to work.
> FYI, Marvin corrected himself saying....
>
> Sorry..
>
> My bad...
>
> The make is +x..

So I should chmod all {M,m}akefile(s) to rwxr-x-r-x?

>> For questions on my syntax of "*.sh", I have believed since my
>> earliest days that a shell file (be it ".sh", ".csh", ".tcsh", or
>> ".bash") that it has to be "+x" as it is an executable. If I am
>> incorrect, I would love to know, though it may take me a day or two to
>> adjust to the news that the earth shifted polarity (smile)
> If you want them to be directly executable, yes.  But if you call them
> as input to a shell they need not be.

That's new to me, thank you

> If you have them as executable you can control what shell is used by the
> first line in the file.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I've got a shell script called killfox.  The
> first line contains "#!/bin/bash" which means it is a "bash" script.  I
> could change it to ""#!/bin/tcsh" and it would be interpreted as a tcsh
> script.
>
I have been including the "$!/bin/whatever" for the longest time as 
there are some things that I find easier to do in {sh,tcsh,bash} and 
want to force that. The tcsh is the biggest problem in my life owing to 
its legacy ... I'd kick over to bash if it weren't for the fact that 
third party are stuck in the history of tcsh. I don't have any issue 
with either tcsh or bash, but I gotta live with the difference.