On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 19:07 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote: > > If something used in the maintainer script breaks policy, the maintainer > > breaks policy. With your argumentation, I could move a bunch of bad > > commands to this_is_not_a_maintainer_script.sh, source that, and policy > > does not mean anything anymore. > > The thing is that it *is* not a maintainer script: it's some upstream > device called from a maintainer script. The difference is minor, but i > do think it matters, in terms of policy. It's not as if the maintainer > *did* move that to a script, as far as I know. > > In other word, the script that calls "sleep" is not in debian/ so in my > mind not covered by policy.
It is in the process tree of a running maintainer script, so yes, it is. Clearly policy is intended to cover the *behaviour* of the maintainer scripts, and not (in cases like this at least) how that behaviour is achieved or where the commands which do so are located in either the source or binary package. If you want to be pointlessly pedantic about it then your bug is that your maintainer script in debian/ calls a program which sleeps, whether or not that program is called "sleep" or not. Ian.
