Re: [RFR] Bits draft for Lintian 2.5.12

2013-04-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net, 2013-04-16, 22:06: API stability not included, so packages should add dependencies on Lintian accordingly. Well, adding dependencies would be required even if we guaranteed API stability. :) Perhaps dependencies misses an adjective such as strict or tight?

Re: [RFR] Bits draft for Lintian 2.5.12

2013-04-17 Thread Niels Thykier
On 2013-04-17 21:14, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net, 2013-04-16, 22:06: API stability not included, so packages should add dependencies on Lintian accordingly. Well, adding dependencies would be required even if we guaranteed API stability. :) Perhaps dependencies

Re: [RFR] Bits draft for Lintian 2.5.12

2013-04-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net, 2013-04-17, 21:51: With that in mind, that would be something like: lintian (= 2.5.12), lintian ( 2.5.13~) If I am not mistaken. We should probably stress the need for ~ in the upper bound to avoid issues in stable backports. ACK, it's easy to forget

Bug#704197: Please review: systemd checks

2013-04-17 Thread Michael Stapelberg
Hi Niels, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net writes: I thought this was safe, but it does have an issue as well. Consider symlink chaining: safe-symlink - unsafe-symlink unsafe-symlink - ../../../../etc/passwd $path-link_resolved will approve safe-symlink because it can be resolved

Re: [RFR] Bits draft for Lintian 2.5.12

2013-04-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net, 2013-04-17, 21:51: lintian (= 2.5.12), lintian ( 2.5.13~) 2.5.12 could have a tilde too (although it's arguably less important than for the other version). -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a