---------- > From: Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Adam P. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; debian-policy@lists.debian.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bug#19129: sendmail: support PPP links --- use /etc/ppp/ip-up.d > Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 9:12 AM > > Hi, > > I'd just like to make my position (as ppp maintainer) clear on this ip-up/down > issue (I've been off skiing for a week, so have not been able to get involved > before this). > > People seem to be drawing a couple of false conclusions from the fact that I > changed the ip-up/down scripts to use run-parts: > > a) I made some sort of unilateral policy decision about how ip-up/down > scripts should work. > > b) I was sanctioning all and sundry to include ip-(up|down).d/ scripts in > their packages, so that every time the ppp link came up all hell would > break loose. > > I don't consider either of these to be the true. > > As in ppp shipped the ip-up/down scripts do nothing. This was the case before > the inclusion the run-parts line, and it still is. The intent (as it always > was) is that the script was provided as a hint for a local sysadmin to aid > them in setting up their ppp connection. > > I doubt very much if there is a single package that could justify having > anything run by ip-up/down by default, without at least asking the user in the > postinst if that was what they required. Any package that does install such a > script is almost certainly a bug IMHO. > > I for one have a diald setup that includes over twenty dial-on-demand links, > only on of which is to my ISP. I certainly don't want to kick my MTA each > time I dial into one of my clients, because it would make diald go nuts, and I > cannot see the point of doing bind reloads either (although I don't suppose it > would do any harm). > > If people think they have a package that needs something to be run by ppp's > ip-up/down they should either put something about it in their packages README, > or include an example script under /usr/doc, or perhaps prompt the user about > it in their packages postinst. This was the case before I included the > run-parts line, and I don't see how I've changed that. > > I'm not particularly convinced by the /etc/ppp/ip.conf idea. It's fine for > simple setups, but if you are going to have to hack scripts to conditionally > start depending upon which ppp link just came up, then the simple ON/OFF > switch is pretty worthless. > > I would be much happier if packages provided example scripts that the sysadmin > could either just copy into place, or edit to suit their needs. I suppose > they can always suggest installing a script in the postinst, if the package > maintainer thinks it would be useful for the vast majority of users. > > It would be nice if we could make it so that a new linux user could get an > Internet connection up after a few minutes of point-and-drool, without making > life hard for the people that have weird and wonderful setups (like Manoj and > me). > > Perhaps we need a configuration file /etc/userlevel, which contains something > ranging from ``neophyte'' to ``guru'', so postinst's can decide what to ask > the user. ;-) > > Cheers, Phil. >
