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

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

>>> E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
>>> Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
>>> ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being
>>> static, but there doesn't appear to be anything in Policy that prohibits
>>> creating the user in the package preinst and then unpacking the package such
>>> that ownership is applied by /name/.  (Unless I'm mistaken, this is
>>> precisely what dpkg does.)

>>> So false-positives are possible with this lintian check, and it should be
>>> overrideable.

>> We currently only have 1 package in the whole archive triggering
>> this. Thats why it is listed.
>> Fine, moved to nonfatal.

> Yes, and that package is not a false-positive - it is genuinely broken and
> should be fixed.  Still, the check itself is unreliable.

I must say, that's a pretty high level of reliability, certainly enough to
keep using "certain" as the certainty in Lintian.  But yes, I suppose it
makes sense to let people override it in the rare case they want to do

> Absent a basis in Policy, "nothing uses it" is not really a reason to
> reject new packages that might start using it.  AFAICS, this is
> basically an unreviewed lintian error.

Correct, I don't believe it's ever triggered.  I suspect it doesn't matter
one way or the other what we do with it for that reason.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: