charm audit summary

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Gustavo Niemeyer's message of 2012-10-16 05:53:49 -0700:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:15 AM, William Reade
> <william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
> >> 9 charms failed because they hardcode the path to hook commands, mainly open-port. It is not clear if this is a bug in the charms, i.e., do we mandate to charm authors they should not assume a path for the hook commands, or in the Go implementation (we will have to provide compatibility symlinks)
> >
> > At the moment, there is no guarantee that the right open-port binary for
> > one unit in a container is the same as the right binary for another
> 
> Agreed, and there shouldn't be IMO. Charms shouldn't hardcode paths to
> the juju tools.
> 

Agreed. I've proposed this change to policy to reflect that:

https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/juju/add-policy-no-hardcoded-tools/+merge/130222