Bug#35762: (lintian could check for hardcoded --infodir in maintaner scripts)
[ Please keep the To: line ].
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Well, we have the Contents-ARCH.gz files, and yes, they seem to
> > indicate that nobody is using /usr/info anymore, but I would only
> > consider the transition complete after /usr/info is removed.
>
> So, it seems to me that we don't need duplicate exhortations
> in policy (we already have ratified FHS 2.1).
I agree we don't need duplicate exhortations in policy, but in this
case it would not be a duplicate exhortation. This report is about the
hardcoded use of install-info's --infodir option, which is related to
the location of the index `dir' file, not the location of the info
files. The install-info tool should be the only one to decide
about where the dir file is, not the individual packages.
Currently, it is possible for packages to put their info files in
/usr/share/info (so that they comply with the FHS), and, at the same
time, use --infodir in their postinst, this time hardcoded to
/usr/share/info, since that's now the current location. I would still
consider this as a bug, since the hardcoded use of --infodir would
still be potentially harmful. Think about the `dir' file being moved
somewhere in /var while we still keep all the other info files in
/usr/share/info, for example.
Reply to: