clone 539315 -1 reassign -1 debian-policy retitle -1 §10.5 Please clarify symlinks to jar files thanks
Hi, CC'ing all listed on the bugs and the binfmt-support maintainer. On 2012-05-18 15:41, Wookey wrote: > The lintian test executable-not-elf-or-script comes up with false > positives for every properly-packaged java app in Debian because those > have executable .jar files (pointed to by a link in /usr/bin). This is > what javahelper makes for you automatically, so it's slightly galling > to be told by lintian that it's not right. > > This affects two of my packages. > > Can we teach this test that .jars are valid executables like elf files > and things with shebang lines? > > Or is there some reason why that's a bad plan? > > Alternatively we should teach javahelper to automatically put in a lintian > override > to supress this. > While I agree the current situation is sub-optimal, I have concerns about the use of jarwrapper and executable jars in general. I believe I have already voiced (some of) them to Matthew, but here goes. My major concern is non-Linux architectures - jarwrapper relies on binfmt-support. Last I checked (a year or more ago) it wasn't available on kfreebsd (nor hurd). While it appears to have built there now its description still gives me feeling of it being "Linux-only". Though, I hope Colin can clarify binfmt-support's situation on non-Linux archs. There are is also Policy §10.5: """ A symbolic link pointing to a compressed file should always have the same file extension as the referenced file. (For example, if a file foo.gz is referenced by a symbolic link, the filename of the link has to end with ".gz" too, as in bar.gz.) """ Jar files are zip files, so it should most likely be considered a compressed file. I notice that (e.g.) sat4j "violates this" and uses /usr/bin/sat4j to point to a jar file in /usr/share/java (with a .jar extension). I know the Policy reads "should" here, but I have a feeling .jar could become (or is?) a "noticeable exception" to this rule (and in that case deserves mentioning in the Policy). Anyhow, I have cloned this bug and will defer that part to the Policy team. > Aha - I see there is already a (3 yr old!) bug about this, and someone has > just > supplied a patch. Any reason not to upload this? > > Wookey > > > It is definitely about time we did something about it. Sorry for the delay. :) ~Niels (Please CC me explicitly on the Policy part of this bug) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
