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 |