Re: Mass-filing bug against use of '/usr/bin/env perl' shebang line
On 07/31/2012 05:44 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-07-31 at 04:44pm, Gian Piero Carrubba wrote:
>> Report. Do you think the above template is suitable for filing the
>> bug reports?
Having a lintian check for this would be nice. We can still file bugs
later if it seems necessary.
Also Policy is a bit unclear about the requirement: Policy 10.4 has
"In the case of Perl scripts this should be #!/usr/bin/perl" (SHOULD),
only the Perl Policy has a MUST. I filed a bug for this issue.
Please note that I personally have no strong opinion about this.
>> Severity. I think it should be serious, as it's a violation of a
>> policy `must' but I'm someway uncomfortable with it, especially
>> during a freeze. OTOH, it's trivial to fix and I'd prefer the fix to
>> be shipped with wheezy. Do you think 'serious' is appropriate?
> The proper severity is serious for violation of a "must" in Policy. You
> should not distort severity during freeze: Release managers can choose
> to tag the bug specially to ignore it for this release as needed.
No, not all policy violations are serious.
In particular I don't think the one here is serious: you cannot rely on
programs working properly once you provide your own versions of system
binaries. Programs could still use "perl -e..." which would look in
PATH. Or you can get the wrong versions of modules if you set PERL5LIB
(or more common have outdated versions in /usr/local).