Hi all-- On Wed 2017-12-13 16:00:26 +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + wontfix
I don't think this is a good resolution for #593940, and i hope we can
revert it.
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 03:41:49PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
>> Package: bind9utils
>> Version: 1:9.7.1.dfsg.P2-2
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Why are dnssec-{keygen,signzone} in /usr/sbin? They are perfectly usable
>> from normal user accounts and zone signing actions are not exactly carried
>> through by "system binaries" as specified by the FHS.
>
> This is where upstream (and every other distribution) puts these
> files.
By this argument, we would never fix any upstream bugs at all :) Debian
has the opportunity to lead the way here.
> Changing this now would break compatibity with everyone else and
> existing scripts referencing the full path name.
Debian policy §6.1 (about maintainer scripts) says:
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.
Note the last sentence ;)
Yes, people do put the full path in their scripts, which makes them
brittle and unfortunate. Why do people put the full path in their
scripts? Often it's because the tools they want to use aren't shipped
already in the $PATH. For example, the useful tools in bind9utils.
So actually fixing this bug would lead to less brittle systems in the
future, which is a good thing.
> Nothing prevents you from calling these programs with the full path (or
> changing PATH in your script).
If we want to continue supporting things that have embedded the full
path, we can ship symlinks in /usr/sbin/ that point back to /usr/bin.
If we shipped these backward-compatibility symlinks, would that be
acceptable to address your concerns?
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
