[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#850967: Clarify /usr/bin/foo should not be hardcoded even in upstream parts

>> Policy 6.1 says
>> | Programs called from maintainer scripts should not normally have a
>> | path prepended to them.
>> Ie, programs that are on PATH should be found via the PATH rather than
>> by hardcoding /usr/bin/foo or whatever.  In general, I think we
>> normally, at least in software written specifically for Debian, apply
>> this not just to maintainer scripts but to all program execution.
> I agree that it's a common practice for software written specifically
> for Debian.  I'm not convinced it's a common practice elsewhere, and i'm
> definitely not convinced that we should mandate divergence from upstream
> for this purpose.

Just as a datapoint, in other communities there is actually a trend in
the opposite direction. For example, for the Python ecosystem there is
an increasing drive to establish a "system Python" that ignores Python
modules in /usr/local and $PYTHONPATH, specifically to avoid potential
interference of user installed modules with distribution Python scripts.

I have a lot of sympathie for this idea, and I think it would be good to
keep this in mind when discussing potential clarifications of policy.


GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Reply to: