On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 05:05:33PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On November 4, 2016 5:01:31 PM EDT, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:22:02PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > >> Hi, > > > >Hi Ralf, > > > >> in the Colis project (which aims at analyzing maintainer scripts) we > >> found 39 maintainer scripts in stable which do not start on #!. The > >> list is attached. Policy 6.1 says about maintainer scripts: > >> > >> if they are scripts (which is recommended), they must start with > >the > >> usual #! convention. > >> > >> Any objection against filing bugs against the offending packages? > >Since > >> policy says "must", severity=serious would be in order, right? > > > >why do you want to file the bugs against stable? > > > >It is clear that any such bugs in unstable/testing should be fixed, > >and they are easy to fix. IMHO severity serious is appropriate. > > > >Are they causing any actual problems in jessie, or do the scripts > >happen to work fine despite this bug? > > > >I am asking since it is not clear to me whether this issue is worth > >stable updates for > 10 packages. > > The validity of the bug and if it's worth fixing the bug are completely > separate questions. If the bug applies to the stable version, then that's > how it should be filled. > > We shouldn't try to hide the problem by artificially avoiding including > stable.
Is this an actual problem, or only a policy violation? If I would report hundreds of "dpkg-buildpackage -A" FTBFS bugs against stable, would you consider that a valuable contribution to unhide problems? And there are users who do use the provided tools to look at the RC bugs in jessie before doing wheezy -> jessie upgrades. Scary-sounding "postinst is broken" bugs for issues without any practical relevance are actually harmful here. > Scott K cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed