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
