Your message dated Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:58:45 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#201182: debian-policy: /etc/init.d scripts mask failure
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jul 2003 04:22:50 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 13 23:22:44 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from tx.symonds.net [64.246.28.87]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19burL-0003z4-00; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:22:43 -0500
Received: from tc218-187-82-15.2-7.pl.apol.com.tw ([218.187.82.15]
helo=jidanni.org)
by tx.symonds.net with asmtp (Exim 4.04)
id 19bur9-0001OP-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:22:43 -0400
Received: from jidanni by jidanni.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19brC6-0000s3-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:27:54 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="BIG5"
From: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: debian-policy: /etc/init.d scripts mask failure
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.16
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:27:54 +0800
X-Debbugs-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.7 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_30,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,HAS_PACKAGE,X_DEBBUGS_CC
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.8.0
Severity: minor
I don't think you are going to fix it at this late date, but next time
please try to follow Unix traditions about $? and emitting error
messages upon failure.
10.3.2. Writing the scripts
---------------------------
These scripts should not fail obscurely when the configuration files
remain but the package has been removed, as configuration files remain
OK, 1."fail" 2."obscurely"
Well, the problem was #2 but the design decision was to instead change
the reporting of #1. So now indeed the obscureness was not fixed, but
failures are no longer detectable.
What if the same design was carried over to rm(1) cp(1) mv(1). I
intend to do an operation but can't tell by $? if it succeeded and
can't count on stderr for failure notices.
on the system after the package has been removed. Only when `dpkg' is
executed with the `--purge' option will configuration files be
removed. In particular, as the `/etc/init.d/<package>' script itself
is usually a `conffile', it will remain on the system if the package
is removed but not purged. Therefore, you should include a `test'
statement at the top of the script, like this:
test -f <program-executed-later-in-script> || exit 0
On system A:
/etc/init.d/bla_bla start; echo $?
starts bla_bla.
On system B:
/etc/init.d/bla_bla start; echo $?
doesn't start bla_bla. $? is the same.
Apparently error message "no news is good news" doesn't apply here either.
Yes, this is all intentional and any changes now will probably break
lots of stuff, but would K&R have done it this way?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux debian 2.4.20-k7 #1 Tue Jan 14 00:29:06 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=zh_TW.Big5, LC_CTYPE=zh_TW.Big5
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 201182-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jul 2003 07:59:37 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 14 02:57:10 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from murphy.debian.org [146.82.138.6]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19byCs-0006BT-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:57:10 -0500
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com (host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net
[12.107.230.171])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642EC1F47E
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 02:01:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from glaurung.green-gryphon.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) with ESMTP id
h6E6wkPS000735;
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:58:46 -0500
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.green-gryphon.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5) id
h6E6wjxD000731;
Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:58:45 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.green-gryphon.com: srivasta set sender to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.2 (via feedmail 8 I)
To: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#201182: debian-policy: /etc/init.d scripts mask failure
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Debian Project
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
(i386-pc-linux-gnu)
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:58:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Dan Jacobson's message of
"Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:27:54 +0800")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA,X_AUTH_WARNING
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Hi,
There is no failure being masked. The package has been
removed, but since the /etc/init.d files are conffiles, they have not
been removed. Startup should not be peppered with extraneous,
incorrect error messages.
I am closing this frivolous report.
manoj
--
There's no such thing as pure pleasure; some anxiety always goes with
it.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
