Maneage - Tasks: task #15682, maneage-lint: check for host...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #15682: maneage-lint: check for host system shebang lines in executable scripts
Submitter: | Boud Roukema <boud> | ||
Submitted: | Tue 09 Jun 2020 01:41:57 AM UTC | ||
Should Start On: | Tue 09 Jun 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC | Should be Finished on: | Tue 09 Jun 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Category: | None | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | None | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Percent Complete: | 0% |
Open/Closed: | Open | Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Sun 21 Jun 2020 06:03:54 PM UTC, comment #6: |
Boud Roukema <boud> |
Tue 09 Jun 2020 09:57:11 PM UTC, comment #5: Great! Thanks for the check, this is just what I meant ;-)!
|
Mohammad Akhlaghi <makhlaghi> |
Tue 09 Jun 2020 09:21:49 PM UTC, comment #4:
|
Boud Roukema <boud> |
Tue 09 Jun 2020 06:34:30 PM UTC, comment #3: Very nice point!
|
Mohammad Akhlaghi <makhlaghi> |
Tue 09 Jun 2020 06:21:58 PM UTC, comment #2: Looking at this LWN article - https://lwn.net/Articles/779997/ - which is pointed to by the direct Wikipedia article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix) - "so well written, such that they use the given 'SHELL' environment variable in their shebangs" suggests not just a reproducibility bug, but a potential install bug on a GNU/Linux system.
|
Boud Roukema <boud> |
Tue 09 Jun 2020 02:16:49 AM UTC, comment #1: This is indeed an important point! Thanks for bringing it up ;-)!
|
Mohammad Akhlaghi <makhlaghi> |
Tue 09 Jun 2020 01:41:57 AM UTC, original submission:
I suspect that both a lot of science-level software and some
|
Boud Roukema <boud> |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Powered by Savane 3.13-4448.
Corresponding source code
Just a comment on the wider question of lint type checkers in general: A very real-world example is the Debian lintian package
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lintian
This gives us a real-life warning of the potential complexity of the overall task. Right now, the lintian tracker URL points to 343 open bugs in lintian itself, of which 326 do not yet have patches ready. This is out of a total of about 2700 bugs (closed and unclosed) altogether.
In other words, the tool for checking that a software package satisfies the required Debian standards is itself rather buggy. My impression from using this in practice is that that tends to mean that lintian warns about what it thinks are bugs, but the documentation is insufficiently clear in explaining what is considered non-standard or unsafe. Sometimes lintian has false positives - it warns about a problem that is not really a problem; the particular check involved is insufficiently intelligent to understand all cases. So someone using lintian has to him/herself be sufficiently skilled (and able to learn more) to decide how to handle the warnings. And preferably s/he should also file a bug report and/or propose a fix.