Hi!
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 13:58:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Wise writes ("Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF:
> maintainer scripts not using strict mode)"):
> > IIRC last time we discussed this, the recommendation was to set an
> > environm
27;s cooperation. The extensions' users need
to (pre-)Depend on the extension and the relevant dpkg version.
Michael Biebl writes ("Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF:
maintainer scripts not using strict mode)"):
> systemd provides a facility called systemd-sysusers
Am 01.07.2017 um 17:25 schrieb Sean Whitton:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:34:01PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> systemd provides a facility called systemd-sysusers which allows to
>> describe system user accounts declaratively. Maybe we could leverage that.
>>
>> https://www.freedesktop.org/softw
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:34:01PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 27.06.2017 um 09:34 schrieb Niels Thykier:
> > After this, we need something other than triggers. Triggers are great
> > for regenerating global caches but they are not good at delegating
> > targeted functionality out lik
On 27/06/17 18:47, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Treinen writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
>>> sigh.
>>> And using `#!/bin(ba)?sh -e` is not good either (there is a lintian tag
>>> about it, iirc).
>
>> what is the rationale for this? Is anyone calling mai
Ralf Treinen writes:
> I had a cursory look over the listed maintainer scripts, and did not
> find any that does a careful checking of exit statuses. Though some
> of them are quite trivial, or even sometimes empty. It looks to me
> as not using strict mode in these cases is an oversight, and I w
Paul Wise writes ("Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer
scripts not using strict mode)"):
> IIRC last time we discussed this, the recommendation was to set an
> environment variable that maintainer scripts could check to determine
> if they should do ho
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> The common expectation in Debian is, that we expect packages to be
> "usable" after installation. Which means we often intermix installation
> with configuration, which is typically done via maintainer scripts.
>
> This makes it very hard to
Am 27.06.2017 um 09:34 schrieb Niels Thykier:
> After this, we need something other than triggers. Triggers are great
> for regenerating global caches but they are not good at delegating
> targeted functionality out like:
>
> * This package needs user X to be created dynamically with home set
>
2017-06-27 21:18 GMT+02:00 Ralf Treinen :
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>
>> we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
>> That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
>
> Thanks to everybody for your f
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
Thanks to everybody for your feedback. I guess I will stick with
severity=normal fo
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 09:03:16AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> > > That is, they neither s
Ralf Treinen writes:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> sigh.
>> And using `#!/bin(ba)?sh -e` is not good either (there is a lintian tag
>> about it, iirc).
> what is the rationale for this? Is anyone calling maintainer scripts
> like "sh
Christoph Biedl:
> [...] Niels has mentioned declarative approaches which seem
> like a good idea. No idea about the status, though, and I'm interested
> in details if there already are some.
>
> Christoph
>
Hi,
Up till now, we deal with some easy wins by converting debhelper
maintscripts t
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:21:01PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>
> > we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> > That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> > The list is attached. This lis
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:01:56AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Christoph Biedl (2017-06-27 00:37:33)
> > Let's be honest: Shell scripts, while easy to write, carry too many risks of
> > unsafe programming. So while your proposed fixing is a step in the right
> > direction, thi
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> > That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> > The list is attache
On 27/06/17 07:04, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:47:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Btw I just fixed these:
>> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/postinst
>> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/postrm
>> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/preinst
>
> While you are at it, please convert these to automatic de
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> The list is attached. This list includes the 12 remaining scripts not
> starting on #! (bugs are al
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:47:53PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Btw I just fixed these:
> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/postinst
> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/postrm
> ekiga-dbg_4.0.1-6+b5/preinst
While you are at it, please convert these to automatic debug symbol
packages. This can be done by just rem
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Let's be honest: Shell scripts, while easy to write, carry too many
> risks of unsafe programming. So while your proposed fixing is a step in
> the right direction, this is all just band-aid. We (as in Debian) should
> look forward and try
Hi,
Quoting Christoph Biedl (2017-06-27 00:37:33)
> Let's be honest: Shell scripts, while easy to write, carry too many risks of
> unsafe programming. So while your proposed fixing is a step in the right
> direction, this is all just band-aid. We (as in Debian) should look forward
> and try to rep
Ralf Treinen wrote...
> What is your opinion?
Certainly the right thing to do.
These scripts run as root, that's reaon enough to enforce extra
precautions. I'd consider even stricter modes like set -u, unless ...
Let's be honest: Shell scripts, while easy to write, carry too many
risks of unsaf
On 26/06/17 22:23, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> The list is attached. This list includes the 12 remaining scripts not
> starting on #! (bugs are already
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> What is your opinion? Policy says "should", not "must". If you agree
> with the MBF, what do you think would be the appropriate severity?
"normal" if there are no issues and "important" if you've encountered
possible problems.
and th
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> The list is attached. This list includes the 12 remaining scripts not
> starting on #! (bug
26 matches
Mail list logo
