On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 05:05:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 18:30:33 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Modestas Vainius wrote: > > > I do believe that > > > dpkg-buildpackage > > > should be changed to support absolute paths for -r again (what's the > > > point not > > > to, they are more secure anyway?) and thus save sbuild users (buildd > > > admins and > > > poor DDs) some time debugging and changing configuration. > > > > I agree; that is a good reason to fix this in dpkg. > > Exactly, fixed now in 1.15.8.2. > > > However, I think sbuild is buggy here: it is friendlier to allow a > > command to be overridden by putting a better version in /usr/local/bin/ > > (as policy ยง6.1 hints). > > > > In other words, how about something vaguely like this patch? (not tested) > > I agree with this. Even though I'm guessing the usage of absolute > paths might have been to try to make the code more robust, using only > command names makes it more future proof, as it allows those binaries > to move on the file system if need be, in addition to what Jonathan > said about allowing overriding.
I'll see what I can do about this when I have time. It's currently somewhat configurable if you're using %Sbuild::Sysconfig::programs (you can alter programs here). The intention was originally using absolute paths for security and reliability, but I agree removing the paths does make sense. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
