On 02.08.2015 14:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:24:00 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote: > >>> The explanation is given by "rpmlint -i …". >>> >> >> Hello, >> >> Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is >> unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location. > > Well, it is the contents of the file that matter. The purpose of the > file, not the "type of file". You call them "shell scripts", but all > these files do, if sourced by the shell, is they alter the global > runtime _configuration_ by setting environment variables for a program > that may evaluate those variables. Hello Michael, Thanks for your comments. >> A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file? > > Certainly. It's a cheap way to set a program's runtime configuration > instead of implementing a full config file loader/parser. My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something (application, service, single program, script...whatever). If they are dedicated only for reading then from my point of view they lose "configuration" meaning (something like WORM storage ;-) ). > And don't forget, there is a difference between marking files as > %config and %config(noreplace). Yes, I remember about it. Thanks. >> B) does in rpmlint aspect non-executable mean 'without execute >> permissions' or 'non-executable at all' (directly and by any interpreter) ? > > It refers to the exec permission bit. Executables files in /etc being > marked as %config would be another mistake. If rpmlint refers 'non-executable' only to the exec permission, what I believe takes place, and the contents of the file that matter for determine 'executable/non-executable' type, it means that rpmlint search 'executable' property not there where it should search. Partially I understand this searching for executable files because it might be difficult clearly qualify some file to some specific type of files basing on a file content or just interpreter definition. However I believe that exist some tools or libraries that can do this content analyze for rpmlint. > It's some sort of white-list to assume that files in /etc meant to be > executed (such as initscripts related files) are not configuration > files in any way. Admin may decide to edit such executables nevertheless > (for reasons unknown), but the next update would overwrite the changes. Good to know that mentioned white-list exists. Could you indicate me where can I find this white-list? > Also not forget, rpmlint only warns about it. Not marking them %config > would not be a severe mistake. It's just better to mark them %config > because of the contents of these files. Yes, right. Best regards. Marcin Haba
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
