On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 00:45, Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote: > > >>>>> "Luca" == Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes: > Luca> How would such a change look like? > > I looked at your patch. > > In most of the cases you are changing non-normative language. > That is, parts of policy that do not create a requirement. > For example: > >Scripts may assume that "/bin/sh" implements the POSIX.1-2017 Shell > >Command Language [7] plus the following additional features not > >mandated by POSIX.1-2017.. [8] > > That creates no requirement on a package. > > >* The term *may* and the adjective *optional* are used to clarify > > cases where it may otherwise appear that Policy is specifying a > > requirement or recommendation. In those cases, these words describe > > I.E. in the cases you adjust, I think it is already > not a bug, and it would be inappropriate to use existing policy language > to complain about which interpreter path people use.
In practice though they are used as normative, for example Lintian raises an error (not even a warning, an actual error). So given they are not literally normative, wouldn't it be fine to change them, or alternatively drop any specific path mention? That way there is no doubt that we can change Lintian and close such bugs. Right now it's not that clear at all, as evidenced by Lintian and these bugs. > There is one case however where I think your patch adjusts normative > language. > > I propose the following adjustment to your patch. Rather than mandating > a particular path for a csh interpreter, make it clear that the policy > requirement is that the csh script start with a #! line rather than > simply assuming csh will interpret the script as was all too common back > in the days of csh: > > @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ including ``open``, ``print``, ``close``, ``rename`` and > ``system``. > Programming Considered Harmful*, one of the ``comp.unix.*`` FAQs, which > can be found at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/. If > an upstream package comes with ``csh`` scripts then you must make sure > -that they start with ``#!/bin/csh`` and make your package depend on the > +that they start with the path of a csh interpreter such as ``#!/bin/csh`` > and make your package depend on the > ``c-shell`` virtual package. > > Any scripts which create files in world-writeable directories (e.g., in How about: +that they start with the path of a csh interpreter such as ``#!/bin/csh`` or other valid paths, and make your package depend on the
