From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 19:43:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t9100: fix breakage when SHELL_PATH is not /bin/sh
Message-ID: <xmqqlh6v7zu0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160208193509.GA30554@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I'm confused why it matters. write_script() unconditionally calls "chmod
> +x", doesn't it?

Yeah, that was exactly my thought, too.  Sorry for not noticing that
this depended the "interpreter" exactly be /bin/sh, though (it is
not even executed).

> I just double-checked its definition in test-lib-function.sh; am I
> missing some Windows-specific magic that kicks in?
>
>> So why not just prefix it with `SHELL_PATH=/bin/sh`?
>
> But then what is write_script buying us?

The correct way to write a script for a specific interpreter is to
give a second parameter to write_script, i.e.

		write_script exec.sh /bin/sh </dev/null &&

and the answer to the question is "it will save us one line".

The version in 'master' that does

                echo "#!/bin/sh" >exec.sh &&
                chmod +x exec.sh &&

should be equivalent, so dropping that hunk from the patch is the
right resolution perhaps?