Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #72195 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-15 01:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2021-06-15 18:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel
"tweewide: Fix most Shebang lines" in stable updates Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2021-06-15 01:00 +0200
Re: "tweewide: Fix most Shebang lines" in stable updates Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2021-06-15 18:00 +0200
| From | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-15 01:00 +0200 |
| Subject | "tweewide: Fix most Shebang lines" in stable updates |
| Message-ID | <Cq3IL-6rB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Commit c25ce589dca10d64dde139ae093abc258a32869c "tweewide: Fix most Shebang lines" was backported to stable branches including 4.9 and 4.19. This changes scripts interpreted by bash, perl, and python to use /usr/bin/env instead of an absolute path to the interpreter. I think that this carries some risk of regression for users building custom kernels or out-of-tree module. So perhaps we should revert it for stretch and buster? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-15 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <CqjDP-7M9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #72195 |
Hi Ben, On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 12:52:31AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Commit c25ce589dca10d64dde139ae093abc258a32869c "tweewide: Fix most > Shebang lines" was backported to stable branches including 4.9 and > 4.19. This changes scripts interpreted by bash, perl, and python to > use /usr/bin/env instead of an absolute path to the interpreter. > > I think that this carries some risk of regression for users building > custom kernels or out-of-tree module. So perhaps we should revert it > for stretch and buster? When this was asked for backporting and then queued for stable series I was indeed worried this might cause issues. Other have raised as well concern, but it was then appied. https://lore.kernel.org/stable/YJvC2W9QTpc9JBp1@kroah.com/ and then https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210520203625.GA6187@amd/ How about the following: keep it as close to upstream, in case we get reports, try again to convince upstream to revert the changes as unsuitable for a stable series. Otherwise we would have to diverge. But personally I would prefer to remain as close as possible to upstream. Regards, Salvatore
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel
csiph-web