Re: Bug#669373: RFS: flactag/2.0.1-1 ITP #507876
On 21/05/12 19:35, Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 07:26:43PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> this was discussed on debian-mentors today - some lintian warnings are
>> not 100% reliable
>
> Yeah, I've been following that.
>
>> $ hardening-check flactag
>> flactag:
>> Position Independent Executable: yes
>> Stack protected: yes
>> Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found)
>> Read-only relocations: yes
>> Immediate binding: yes
>>
>> $ hardening-check discid
>> discid:
>> Position Independent Executable: yes
>> Stack protected: no, not found!
>
> I think this is the key. The discid binary is so simple it may well not have
> a stack! The 'main' function is barely 10 lines long, and just instantiates
> a very simple class.
>
I wonder if that is justification to make a lintian-override for that
warning?
Reply to: