On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes ("Re: update-initramfs should not set PATH"):
> > Control: tag -1 wontfix
> >
> > I'm not at all convinced that update-initramfs should be sensitive to
> > the path of the process invoking it. update-initramfs is not only used
> > interactively, but also automatically by package installation.
>
> Package installation should also occur with an appropriate PATH. If
> PATH contains exciting things then that is presumably deliberate.
>
> See policy 6.1 (last para):
>
> Programs called from maintainer scripts should not normally have a
> path prepended to them. Before installation is started, the package
> management system checks to see if the programs ldconfig,
> start-stop-daemon, and update-rc.d can be found via the PATH
> environment variable. Those programs, and any other program that one
> would expect to be in the PATH, should thus be invoked without an
> absolute pathname. Maintainer scripts should also not reset the PATH,
> though they might choose to modify it by prepending or appending
> package-specific directories. These considerations really apply to all
> shell scripts.
>
> I think it would be better to follow this recommendation here, unless
> you have a compelling reason to deviate from our usual practice.As update-initramfs is not a maintainer script, I fail to see the relevance. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I'm always amazed by the number of people who take up solipsism because they heard someone else explain it. - E*Borg on alt.fan.pratchett
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
