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

Re: Cleaning out Lintian's "Experimental: yes" tags



On Monday, January 5, 2026 12:42:53 PM Mountain Standard Time Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:

> On 1/5/26 2:09 PM, Soren Stoutner wrote:

>

> > On Sunday, January 4, 2026 3:09:12 AM Mountain Standard Time Holger Levsen

> > wrote:

>

> >>> * update-debian-copyright

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>   - last updated: 2022-12

> >>>   - 22,597 entries in UDD

> >>>   - This tag was highly controversial when it was implemented and I don't

> >>>   see

> >>>   its usefulness.:

> >> :

> >> :) I'd move it to pedantic.

> >

> >

> > This tag has been useful to me more than once.

>

>

> I'm curious to know how. As I've stated in another message in this

> thread, updating your copyright notice yearly isn't required.


It catches those situations where I intended to update the copyright and forgot.


> >>> * systemd-service-file-missing-hardening-features

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>   - last updated: 2018-12

> >>>   - 6,458 entries in UDD

> >>>   - This check only looks if the systemd service file includes at least 1

> >>>   feature in a long list of "hardening" features. IMO, this is an overly

> >>>   simplistic solution to a very hard problem.

> >>

> >> agreed.

> >

> >

> > I think this is useful because otherwise I would never have known that some

> > of my packages are missing hardening features.

>

>

> My main problem is that "hardening a systemd service file" isn't binary

> and this check is.

>

> I think the goal of having hardened systemd service files is right and

> we should work towards this, but this tag isn't good enough to do so and

> might even give people a false sense of security.

>

> Are you interested in having a look at this tag and helping it making

> better? If so, I can keep it as "Experimental: yes" for the time being.


I completely agree that this check needs to be improved.  However, the current check is better than nothing.  So, if an improved check can be provided, it should replace this.  Otherwise, I think the current check should remain.


--

Soren Stoutner

soren@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: