Hello, On Tue 15 Dec 2020 at 06:02PM +01, Oxan van Leeuwen wrote:
> Hi, > > On 14-12-2020 22:43, Sean Whitton wrote: >> On Mon 30 Nov 2020 at 07:49PM +01, Bill Allombert wrote: >>> 'not fail' here means that the script terminates with return code 0. >> >> This is how I would read it too. Would a patch to add "(i.e. exit with >> return code 0)" resolve the original submitter's concerns? > > Though I'm still not convinced it's a sensible requirement, that > clarification would resolve my main concern (i.e. having to fix init > scripts to work with an absent defaults file). By the way, there's an > identical requirement a few paragraphs before, so it might be good to > insert the same clarification there as well. Okay, cool. Patches welcome! -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
