On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:40:53PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > The option "--oknodo" changes the behaviour to the LSB recomendations but > > many services in Debian don't use this option and return 1 in the case > > I've quotted. This is very problematic for me when I try to use a Debian > > service init script with HeartBeat that expects to receive a 0.
> I'm reluctant to change the default behaviour of start-stop-daemon at this > point. What do other people think of making --oknodo the default behaviour > and adding a new option to force the current default behaviour (exit with > failure if nothing had to be done)? I think this sounds like there's no real transition plan between the two states; anything that actually relies on the current behavior of s-s-d without --oknodo will suddenly be broken. Changing the semantics of core tools in this way is a bad idea. The right answer is that we should be fixing the wrong init scripts, not trying to coerce all the init scripts with a change in s-s-d semantics. An init script may have a legitimate reason to want to check for the difference between exit statuses 0 and 1, without necessarily using this information a way that breaks the init script's own exit status, and changing s-s-d behavior will break these legitimate use cases. > The alternative is to change policy and/or lintian to ensure that packages > are using --oknodo unless they have a good reason not to. This was already discussed on debian-devel in March of this year. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/03/msg00772.html Feel free to propose an amendment to policy that clarifies that "sensible" behavior is equivalent to --oknodo (without implying that init scripts are required to use s-s-d!), and I will happily second it; as I already commented in that thread, I think this is a mere clarification of what the policy has always been, not a change to policy at all. > > [1] LSB specifications about init script actions: > > http://www.linux-foundation.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html That one's starting to get up there right next to "our priorities are our users and free software" on my list of Facile Arguments That Demonstrate The Poster Has No Clue. :P -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
