[aur-general] Issue a warning while (re)packaging a binary package?

[alad]

On 18/06/2021 16:43, Jonathon Fernyhough via aur-general wrote:
> On 18/06/2021 14:05, Jan Kohnert via aur-general wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> a new version of a (binary) package I'm maintaining (clockify-desktop) requires an
>> executable /tmp directory to run.
>>
> My immediate questions would be why, and is this an upstream issue?
>
> Or, is an executable /tmp a reasonable assumption? 🤔

I don't see anything in file-hierarchy(7) that mandates an executable 
/tmp. That said, it contains a hint that some programs might break:

        /tmp/, /var/tmp/ and /dev/shm/ should be mounted nosuid and
        nodev, which means that set-user-id mode and character or block
        special devices are not interpreted on those file systems. In
        general it is not possible to mount them noexec, because various
        programs use those directories for dynamically generated or
        optimized code, and with that flag those use cases would break.
        Using this flag is OK on special-purpose installations or systems
        where all software that may be installed is known and doesn't
        require such functionality. See the discussion of
        nosuid/nodev/noexec in mount(8) and PROT_EXEC in mmap(2).

Alad

>
> J
>