Ben Hutchings writes ("Re: update-initramfs should not set PATH"):
> On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 21:56 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings writes ("Re: update-initramfs should not set PATH"):
> > > 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):
> >
> > [...] 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.
Firstly, the argument you made above, that update-initramfs is called
"automatically by package installation", seems to be based on the idea
that this is a good reason for setting the PATH.
Secondly, note "These considerations really apply to all shell
scripts".
Ian.
