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

Bug#623031: lintian: Please add check for packages using /run and /run/lock



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2011-04-16 20:51, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.0~rc2
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> 
> Hi,
> 

Hi,

> Lintian currently warns about packages putting files in /var/run
> and /var/lock.  The attached patch does the same for /run and
> /run/lock.  [This could be simplified to be just for /run since
> any file in any subdirectory is a bug]
> 

As I also mentioned over IRC, we already added a check for this in
commit 8779248a[1], nevertheless thanks for the suggestion/reminder.
  Back then we only went with the /run check and I think we will stick
to that unless using /run/lock is significantly more (or less) severe a
problem.  However this does not seem to be the case here. :)


[1] http://git.debian.org/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=commit;h=8779248a

The tests were added in d399c96f.

> Note that while I updated the testsuite, I'm not sufficiently
> familiar with lintian to do this properly, so it might need
> some tweaking.  Hopefully it's useful as a starting point
> though.
> 
> 
> Many thanks,
> Roger
> 
> -- System Information:
> [...]

If the check had not already been implemented I would probably just have
used the patch - possibly removing the /run/lock check and reduced the
tests that checked for files/dirs in /run.
  Nice to see a patch/check that also covers the test suite. :)

~Niels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNqpYkAAoJEAVLu599gGRCzr4QAKpRRJzzFvRjN84owRBRmWHs
BAe7XvWUWLxkveKy0Wr3/sEARXI94iwAJgPR6xHdXnBQCXdKmm7VHlr13broHyau
19YuLQKRrnkNqPMaxob/ti7FRbVZ88QoFs6fpxIgP2LDo+oDsz6WQdhfxc7dCBgB
C1wfM39a9QqyPMBV81vAr8rrXNMcYLRBDoT4O5zJ6YqyNjXIn3Dw8Ysp3CoRecpD
uw2cR05eXDSa+v+ZunaWmyFCIfKgiqyFzBEP9foVhAzpCy19GHYNW0WfEW3CIBGX
JYCZtKpLL9Vcc/vUPM0Wlce27O5t/Wtjhpzd2/UaeP39K+0SBc/vj4tUoMDi3vT/
Wcx5C+12FKD8gnob56gi2HQvRB+oU+R8dOhP/T2i5BAv83+ENgERa0WHqfrK/3vJ
fDka6vnKvoLHrGBXkxDQJH3WZ+bZLZ01D1rvAGOEP7AgwNieOxXyP+fMyCqLZO68
egVwtGkRYZX03htUvXtFomGFp17ZXH4U8ldpTH25qHXpM2NwONHirsS0TD8+S8n1
YCC6EXqherGlC3S80xvp/DvE8nJEiJZ7LGs5ajKnNeDjhioJVC3fcayAARR1YGxq
CyIFzx9vWwSN213b1EZVPttQINq7YuwV3gNDVhkGxn6/7ANLV0RqKmPEBMvGR8qF
9N99/5JYBGB2vrKOTG5X
=Qpqx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: