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

Re: a nitpicky reading of policy

Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 03:41:34PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I read through the policy document today, trying to nitpick and find things
> > that have changed in current practice. Here's what I found:
> >
> > * The policy manual uses the term "section" to refer to main, non-us,
> >   non-free, and contrib. This overloads the term since we typically call
> >   games, libs, docs, etc, sections. Instead, it calls those things
> >   subsections. It also uses the term inconsitently:
> [...]
> >   I think this deserves to be cleaned up, but I don't really know what to
> >   call main, contrib, and non-free. Distributions, maybe?
> We'll, since we are adamant that the Debian distribution consists
> officially only of "main", this might be a bad idea.
> "Category", maybe?

Well, that was my point. Main _is_ a distribution, it is the debian
distribution. So I thought non-free and contrib could be called
distributions as well, with the understanding that they are the non-free and
contrib distributions, not the debian distribution.

But "area" seems fairly neutral, and is the word used by the social contract,
so I think I prefer that.

> typesetter.  Obviously the "not everyone uses their Unix box as a ..." is
> an argument that can be run away with, but there are few Debian packages
> that rival even mininal X or TeX installations in size, and maybe none with
> a priority higher than optional.  Joey, you're good at "simple" perl
> one-liners that deduce all kinds of scary facts from the available file, so
> I'll leave it up to you to verify or refute that.  :)

joey@gumdrop:~>perl -ne 'chomp; if ($_ eq "") { print $p{"Installed-Size"}."\t$p{Package}\t\t$p{Priority}\n" if $p{Priority}=~/required|important|standard/; undef %p} $p{$1}=$2 if /^(.*?): (.*)/' /var/lib/dpkg/available | sort -rn | head -20
27654   tetex-base              standard
26418   emacs20         standard
11652   locales         standard
7762    libc6-dev               standard
5972    tetex-bin               standard
5168    perl-5.005              important
4273    perl-5.005-doc          standard
4208    doc-linux-text          standard
4011    perl-5.004              important
3994    libc6           required
3166    groff           important
3139    xlib6g          standard
2304    g++             standard
2292    gcc             standard
2238    binutils                standard
2189    ncurses-term            standard
2050    lynx            standard
1928    gdb             standard
1874    mutt            standard
1818    gconv-modules           standard

> > * "Please look very careful at the details." s/careful/carefully/
> You make the anal-retentive old English teacher inside me proud, young man.

How many of your parents were English teachers? 2 here.. ;-)

> > * "Any scripts which create files in world-writable directories (e.g., in
> >   `/tmp') have to use a mechanism which will fail if a file with the
> >   same name already exists." I can write code that complies with this and is
> >   still a serious security problem -- the problem is that this sentance
> >   encourages the naive to write something like:
> >   	if [ ! -e /tmp/foo ]; then
> >        		echo "goodbye, /etc/passwd" >/tmp/foo
> > 	fi
> >   Which is vunerable to a race. I think it's be better to require that
> >   it use a "mechanism which will atomically fail ..."
> I agree, but an example of how to do this should be included.  Many newbie
> developers may not know what "atomic" means in an OS context.

Well, policy goes on to reccommend use of mktemp or tempfile right after the
quoted portion. I was hoping that if someone didn't understnad by what I
meant by amonic there, they would go with the reccommendation.

see shy jo

Reply to: