Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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

Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode) [and 1 more messages]

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 which allows to > describe

Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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. >> >>

Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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

Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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

Re: Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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 >

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Declarative packaging (Was: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode)

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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,

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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

Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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 #!

Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode

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 filed for these). Policy says in Section 10.4: