Re: Bug#669373: RFS: flactag/2.0.1-1 ITP #507876

[Andy Hawkins <andy@gently.org.uk>]

In article <[🔎] 4FBAB097.7080302@trendhosting.net>,
           Daniel Pocock<daniel@trendhosting.net> wrote:
> 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?
>
>