On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:48:13PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> package: debian-policy
> affects: simutrans-pak128.britain
> x-debbugs-cc: ans...@debian.org, reproducible-bui...@lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> I've just noticed and filed "#780724: simutrans-pak128.britain ftbfs if PATH
> does not contain /usr/games" which made me notice that PATH is not specified
> in debian-policy.
>
> buildd.debian.org uses
>
> PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games
>
> while pbuilder uses
>
> PATH="/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin"
>
> So this brings up three questions: a.) should /usr/games be in PATH when
> building packages? b.) should /usr/local/* be part of PATH? and finally, c.)
> what should PATH be, what must PATH include, what must not be included in
> PATH?
I think this already come up, but I cannot find it.
This raise the question, though: why binaries needed to build packages are in
/usr/games in the first place ?
In the simutrans instance, the culprit is the file /usr/games/makeobj which is
not a game and has a very generic name, Also kdesdk-scripts provides
/usr/bin/makeobj, so there is a filename conflict already.
Maybe it would be better to move it to /usr/lib/simutrans/
and use an absolute path.
In any case, policy currently has:
10.10. File names
-----------------
The name of the files installed by binary packages in the system PATH
(namely `/bin', `/sbin', `/usr/bin', `/usr/sbin' and `/usr/games')
must be encoded in ASCII.
though it is a strange place to define the system path.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballo...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150318124450.GA22339@yellowpig
