Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <bfg-gentoo@××××××××.no>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mass filing of bugs/Gentoo sanitation
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:30:54
Message-Id: 1170667737.25913.9.camel@bfg
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Mass filing of bugs/Gentoo sanitation by "Petteri Räty"
1 On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 14:04 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
2 > Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen wrote:
3 > Please tell us what kinds of bugs we are talking about so we can tell
4 > you if they are bugs in your program or ebuilds.
5 >
6 > >
7 > > I have also not mapped the bugs to particular packages yet, as I plan to
8 > > do, but at any rate it seems likely there will be a large number to
9 > > report. How do I go ahead with this?
10 > >
11 >
12 > I would have the problems writting in a nice format to a txt file and
13 > put the text file online and post a link to this mailing list for us to
14 > take a look. If there is a genuine problem, we can use bugzilla after
15 > that to fix it.
16
17 OK, the bugreport is now ready. I have investigated a few of them, and
18 there are three classes of bugs.
19
20 ignored.empty: Quite obvious the file is empty
21
22 ignored.shouldNotBeExecutable: These are files that belongs to a class
23 of files that definitely shouldn't be executable.
24
25 Unknown: This class contains all the files that wasn't positively
26 identified with any cause for being executable. There may be a few false
27 detections here, but most should be true problems. Of the types I've
28 identified within this class there are two kinds.
29
30 -Scripts without the hash-bang(#!) identifier.
31 -Files that should not have an executable bit.
32
33
34 For the full list see:
35 http://www.blenning.no/gentoo-stuff/bugreport1.txt
36
37 With difference in indentation the format is:
38 package
39 class
40 file
41 output from "file" command
42
43 --
44 Tom Fredrik Blenning Klaussen <bfg-gentoo@××××××××.no>
45
46
47 --
48 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list