Is it on purpose that pex_binary can't include shell_sources or am I messing up somewhere? I have a tool that sub processes out to more shell code than Python and want to use the pex machinery to package it into a nice standalone bin. Do I have to make them resources? I remember there was discussion to remove the restriction on non-rc files because facilities like Path(file) make it easy to avoid the pitfall noted in the docs—was a design consensus reached on that? I also didn't know other target types would fall under the files target umbrella—I take it you only have python sources and resources?

Yes, you have to make them resources currently. It's a sordid story @bitter-ability-32190 is working on.

Yeah TLDR pants has to make assumptions about the types of things in the dependencies field. And ignores anything that doesn't fall into that assumption 😔

Thank you. I don't know why but I thought I had previously been able to package shell scripts. 🤷‍♂️