[2019-07-21 14:49] Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> > ❦ 19 juillet 2019 13:02 +00, Dmitry Bogatov <kact...@debian.org>: > > > Unless it is false-positive, it constitutes violation of FHS, so it > > warrants "warning" severity. > > As stated earlier, there is a large gap on language between manual > section definitions and definition for sbin/bin: > > hier(7) says: > > /sbin Like /bin, this directory holds commands needed to boot the > system, but which are usually > not executed by normal users. > > /usr/sbin > This directory contains program binaries for system > administration which are not es‐ > sential for the boot process, for mounting /usr, or for system > repair. > > man-pages(7) says: > > 1 User commands (Programs) > Those commands that can be executed by the user from within > a shell. > > 8 System management commands > Commands like mount(8), many of which only root can execute. > > Also, "fixing" this means renaming a manual page and patching the various > references to it.
I do not see large gap between "System management commands" and "binaries for system administration". So I still claim that this is FHS violation. But... ... I have to admit that fixing this warning, especially with non-cooperative upstream (e.g #932438) causes major pain. So okay, let us drop severity to "info" with long description a-la binary in /sbin and manpage in section 1 is likely contitutes violation of FHS. Please discuss this matter with upstream. -- Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days. Please, mention in body of your reply when you add or remove recepients.