Re: new source format
On 17 Mar 1999, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Jules Bean) wrote on 16.03.99 in <[🔎] Pine.SOL.3.95q.990316124800.2674O-100000@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>:
>
> > Is having a long Unpack-Commands header preferable to an unpack control
> > script?
> >
> > I would have thought the latter was more flexible.
>
> That's *why* the header solution is preferrable. Ian has always pointed
> out (and I now think he's right) that we do not want arbitrary scripts
> executed on unpacking the source. That's just too dangerous.
>
> Of course, you could still put this in a separate file and _call_ that an
> "unpack script", but the important thing is that it needs to have a
> severely restricted syntax that does *not* allow calling arbitrary
> commands.
(I confess to playing devils advocate)
Why is it dangerous to allow arbitrary scripts to be executed?
We allow arbitrary scripts to be executed from debian/rules. That's
pretty dangerous, isn't it? I could slip an rm -fr ~ into a debian/rules
in a package I maintain. Presumably, you trust me not to do that.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: