|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > June 2004 > Bug in description of menu or bug in lintian: executable-in-usr-lib-menu
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Bug in description of menu or bug in lintian: executable-in-usr-lib-menu
|
|
| Andreas Tille 2004-06-14, 5:53 pm |
| Hello,
I'm preparing new cdd-Packages and faced a new lintian error message:
E: cdd-common: executable-in-usr-lib-menu usr/lib/menu/cdd-menu 0755
I think it is lintian bug.
The doc in /usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz says something about
non executables in the packages and making them executable in the
postinst - but this seems to be stupid.
The maintainer of menu told Cosimo Alfarano to use this executable
srcipt to accomplish a certain goal (it should only do something if
a *user* calls update-menus, not if root calls it). For this reason
update-menus is neither called in postinst nor postrm by intention
which can be fixed by lintian.overrides. But in the case above I
see no reason in providing a non executable and make it executable
in the postinst. Any reason for that?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jeroen van Wolffelaar 2004-06-14, 5:53 pm |
| On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm preparing new cdd-Packages and faced a new lintian error message:
>
> E: cdd-common: executable-in-usr-lib-menu usr/lib/menu/cdd-menu 0755
>
> I think it is lintian bug.
Then, if I may ask, why are you mailing to debian-devel?
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Tille 2004-06-14, 5:53 pm |
| On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> Then, if I may ask, why are you mailing to debian-devel?
If you read the rest of my mail or the subject you might notice that I'm
unsure whether this is a bug in the documentation of the menu package
which conflicts to the advise of the author of menu. I just want to make
sure what is the intention before filing stupid bugs.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Bill Allombert 2004-06-14, 5:53 pm |
| On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm preparing new cdd-Packages and faced a new lintian error message:
>
> E: cdd-common: executable-in-usr-lib-menu usr/lib/menu/cdd-menu 0755
>
> I think it is lintian bug.
99.9% [1] of files in usr-lib-menu should not be executable, so it is
reasonnable for lintian to issue a warning. However it is labelled as an
error (E here which is not in accordance with lintian definition of E:,
it should be W:.
> The doc in /usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz says something about
> non executables in the packages and making them executable in the
> postinst - but this seems to be stupid.
The menu manual say that menu-methods scripts should be non-executable
and made executable in the postinst.
However files in /usr/lib/menu are not menu-methods but menu files
and should not be handed this way.
> The maintainer of menu told Cosimo Alfarano to use this executable
> srcipt to accomplish a certain goal (it should only do something if
> a *user* calls update-menus, not if root calls it). For this reason
> update-menus is neither called in postinst nor postrm by intention
> which can be fixed by lintian.overrides. But in the case above I
> see no reason in providing a non executable and make it executable
> in the postinst. Any reason for that?
For executables menu entries files, you must put them executable in the
..deb and do not mess with the x bit in postinst. Else update-menus could
choke while trying to parse the file if the installation abort.
I hope that clear your concerns,
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
[1] This statistic was not made on the spot. Indeed you can check for
yourself at http://people.Debian.org/~ballombe/menu/menufiles.tgz that
only 1 over 1500 need the x bit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Tille 2004-06-14, 5:54 pm |
| On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 99.9% [1] of files in usr-lib-menu should not be executable, so it is
> reasonnable for lintian to issue a warning. However it is labelled as an
> error (E here which is not in accordance with lintian definition of E:,
> it should be W:.
OK, this was one option for me to file a bug report.
> The menu manual say that menu-methods scripts should be non-executable
> and made executable in the postinst.
>
> However files in /usr/lib/menu are not menu-methods but menu files
> and should not be handed this way.
Ahhh, thanks for this clarification
> For executables menu entries files, you must put them executable in the
> .deb and do not mess with the x bit in postinst. Else update-menus could
> choke while trying to parse the file if the installation abort.
>
> I hope that clear your concerns,
OK, so what I have to do is:
1. File a bug report against lintian to s/^E:/^W:/.
2. Use /usr/share/lintian/override/cdd-common to hide the warning
because it is exactly what I intended.
Right?
BTW, what do you think about the fact that lintian also regards
post{inst,rm}-does-not-call-updatemenus
as an "Error"? IMHO it should also be a "Warning" (and yes, I will hide
it also by overrides).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Bill Allombert 2004-06-14, 5:54 pm |
| On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 06:53:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> OK, so what I have to do is:
> 1. File a bug report against lintian to s/^E:/^W:/.
> 2. Use /usr/share/lintian/override/cdd-common to hide the warning
> because it is exactly what I intended.
>
> Right?
Yes, if you feel lintian-pedantic.
> BTW, what do you think about the fact that lintian also regards
>
> post{inst,rm}-does-not-call-updatemenus
> as an "Error"? IMHO it should also be a "Warning" (and yes, I will hide
> it also by overrides).
[I will assume your executable menu file generate no output when run as
root, else you must call updatemenus in post{inst,rm}]
Frankly, I think differently. Calling update-menus in post{inst,rm}
in your case do no harm, and a menu file that create no menu entry when
run as root is so much a oddball case that I think that deserve a E:.
In fact, even in your case, I would advise you to call update-menus
since you need to test what happen if the package is installed at the
same time as another package calling update-menus anyway and that would
also prevent future mistake.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Tille 2004-06-15, 5:54 pm |
| On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
>
> [I will assume your executable menu file generate no output when run as
> root, else you must call updatemenus in post{inst,rm}]
The relevant portion says:
CDDUSER=`whoami`
# it has to be run only by unprivileged users via update-menus
test "${CDDUSER}" == "root" && exit 0
> Frankly, I think differently. Calling update-menus in post{inst,rm}
> in your case do no harm,
Well it does not harm, but I would regard it stupid to call a script just
because lintian wants me to do it. I prefer the lintian.override here.
> and a menu file that create no menu entry when
> run as root is so much a oddball case that I think that deserve a E:.
OK. If you think so it is fine for me. I was just asking because you
voted for a change in the other case.
> In fact, even in your case, I would advise you to call update-menus
> since you need to test what happen if the package is installed at the
> same time as another package calling update-menus anyway and that would
> also prevent future mistake.
In how far? I think the snipped above is clear enough that there
should occure no conflicts with other packages.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|