On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:20 +0900, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:21 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'm not opposed to adding it, but I think we should probably start with it
marked as experimental, and I'd expect a lot of false positives.
Agreed, definitely an info-level complaint
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't entirely sure about the Severity and Certainty, so suggestions
/ objections welcome.
I would tend towards wishlist / possible, but since it's experimental, it
doesn't matter a great deal. I'm a little hesitant to say that changing a
library
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:03 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't entirely sure about the Severity and Certainty, so suggestions
/ objections welcome.
I would tend towards wishlist / possible, but since it's experimental, it
doesn't matter a great
Package: lintian
Version: 2.0.0
Severity: wishlist
rpmlint added checks for exit() or _exit() calls in shared libraries:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450011
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1448
I think this would be a useful addition to lintian.
--
bye,
pabs
Paul Wise [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.0.0
Severity: wishlist
rpmlint added checks for exit() or _exit() calls in shared libraries:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450011
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/changeset/1448
I think this would be a
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 21:21 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I have some packages that would trigger this because the library uses
generic error handling routines that include functions that can call
exit() or _exit() but which are never called in practice. Ideally, that
dead code would be
6 matches
Mail list logo
