Re: marking tapset files

[Vara Prasad <prasadav at us dot ibm dot com>]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Hi -
>
> If you recall, scripts located under tapset/* are like libraries and
> not mainline scripts people can run individually.  This confusion is
> biting several people.  Short of some sort of mechanical enforcement,
> do you think it would be worthwhile to put an additional header comment
> into all our tapsets, near the copyright header (which they all should
> have, hint hint):
>
>      /* This file is part of the tapset library.  It is not meant for
>      direct execution, but only for implicit use by other scripts.
>      See test case <FILE> for an example. */
>
> - FChE
>  

How about we change the extension type of these tapsets something like 
.tap instead of .stp that is used for end user scripts. I think we 
should also have the name of the tapsets start with lib*. I think we 
should also add some kind of signature inside the tapset at the top 
equivalent to the magic number of executables. If this convention is 
followed translator could recognize the difference between scripts and 
tapsets and error out if someone tries to execute them directly.

If some user renames these files and tampers with the magic number we 
may not recognize it as a tapset and run into the same problem that we 
are facing today, but that is acceptable i guess if someone tampers with 
it.