OPENJDK-3655 change script permissions to permit o+x #577
+9
−15
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Dowland <[email protected]>
Many of the shell scripts we copy into the image are shell "libraries" which are intended to be sourced by other shell scripts and not directly executed themselves. It's confusing to install them with +x permissions. The scripts which are intended to be executed were set with owner or group execute permission but "other" without. This was a problem for some users of the containers in a non-OpenShift context, and there was no good reason for it, so set those +x for other as well.
jerboaa
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/OPENJDK-3655
This sets o+x for executable scripts and removes x for files that are intended to be sourced but not directly executed.
As it stands this is as small change, but, my preferred approach to addressing this would be the approach taken in #559, which would result in a cleaner and more manageable source. @jerboaa , would you object to a fix like that in
ubi9?