Bug 14705 - Allow .pl too in atomicupdate
Summary: Allow .pl too in atomicupdate
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Marcel de Rooy
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-08-21 11:24 UTC by Marcel de Rooy
Modified: 2016-04-22 11:43 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: Trivial patch
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Bug 14705: Allow .pl too in atomicupdate (1.23 KB, patch)
2015-08-21 11:26 UTC, Marcel de Rooy
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 14705: Allow .pl too in atomicupdate (1.43 KB, patch)
2015-08-21 11:31 UTC, Marcel de Rooy
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcel de Rooy 2015-08-21 11:24:36 UTC
Bug 13893 added perl files with the extension .perl.
In practice you always tend to add a .pl file.
I suggest to add it.
Comment 1 Marcel de Rooy 2015-08-21 11:26:14 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Marcel de Rooy 2015-08-21 11:31:14 UTC
Created attachment 41778 [details] [review]
Bug 14705: Allow .pl too in atomicupdate

Bug 13893 added perl files with the extension .perl.
In practice you always tend to add a .pl file.
I suggest to add it.

Test plan:
[1] Add a .pl file in atomicupdate.
[2] Try the update step in webinstaller.
Comment 3 Jonathan Druart 2015-12-10 10:27:16 UTC
The point of using .perl instead of .pl was to avoid executing the .pl files existing in the atomicupdate directory before 13068 removed them (it has been useful recently, see bug 14820 comment 8).
Comment 4 Marcel de Rooy 2015-12-15 10:39:03 UTC
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #3)
> The point of using .perl instead of .pl was to avoid executing the .pl files
> existing in the atomicupdate directory before 13068 removed them (it has
> been useful recently, see bug 14820 comment 8).

So if we do not backport this, there is no problem.
Comment 5 Marcel de Rooy 2016-04-22 11:43:18 UTC
If noone is interested in this small adjustment, I will give up on it.