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

Re: Getting dh_install to do what we need



On 09/12/2011 02:10, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@ubuntu.com> writes:
> 
>>> See my workaround in the mail you quoted. "#! /bin/sh $PATH" should work
>>> for kFreeBSD and pretty much anything else out there too. An extra
>>> /bin/sh never hurt anybody!
>>
>> Except that it forces your interpreter to be written in sh, which Debian doesn't
>> like[1][2].
>>
>> [1] http://lintian.debian.org/tags/script-with-language-extension.html
> 
> This is irrelevant, as it's only about the extension, and only about
> scripts on the path. My proposal has no extension, and isn't on the
> path, either.

Sorry, I mixed it up with another post that mentioned /usr/bin/dh_multiarchify.
I didn't realize you changed the path to /usr/lib/debhelper/dh_multiarchify.
> 
>> [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-scripts
> 
> This also doesn't talk about restricting the #! interpreter to
> binaries. The only restriction it makes is that csh scripts should be
> avoided. (And that's a should, not a must)
> 
> Besides, dpatch has been using #! /bin/sh $PATH for more than 7 years
> now. Please, pretty please, find a policy violation in that, and we can
> suddenly break a thousand packages in one swift swing of an arm!

I linked to the policy and lintian tag not because of an implied policy
violation, but the general reasoning behind not permitting extensions in scripts
on $PATH, i.e. that it causes the implementation language of the binary/script
to be locked into the #!s of all its users.

I'm guessing that dpatch-run had never needed its implementation language
changed, but that doesn't necessarily justify locking the implementation
language of your proposed dh_multiarchify into the #!s of all .install files
which use it.

Between "#!/usr/bin/env /usr/lib/debhelper/dh_multiarchify" and "#!/bin/sh
/usr/lib/debhelper/dh_multiarchify", I think the former is obviously the
superior choice, regardless of what dpatch used for the past 7 years.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: