also sprach Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> [2010.03.01.0744 +0100]: > I think lsb-base should be fixed, but I also think set -e in an init > script is a bad idea. I would argue that specifically because running > commands that fail is a normal and expected init script operation, unlike > nearly every other shell script, so set -e just makes it harder to write a > script that functions correctly according to Policy. It also makes the > init script fragile in ways that are painfully hard to debug when things > like the LSB functions don't account for set -e. > > I've personally run into three or four serious bugs in packages because of > set -e, and I've never seen a case where having set -e prevented or > diagnosed a problem that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
I still think set -e is a good idea, but I realise it boils down to preference. If your experience is representative, then it's probably better to advocate not setting set -e in init scripts. What about maintainer scripts? -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "president thieu says he'll quit if he doesn't get more than 50% of the vote. in a democracy, that's not called quitting." -- the washington post
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
