Yeah I agree, service masking is a corner case and it's just making things more confusing. I also got misled by the haproxy_status function, which doesn't actually seem to ever be called (although I still think some return codes are wrong).
My bug report stemmed from seeing on a production server that Pacemaker was not be able to detect that haproxy was down. Since my initial analysis (RC=0 simply if PIDFILE exists) was wrong and I can't analyze the original issue any further, I think this report could be closed. On the other hand, what Karl found out is still valid: it is a corner case, but `test -x $HAPROXY || exit 0` isn't really correct. If the initscript is to be LSB compliant[0], RC=0 must be reserved for success. The fact that the binary isn't executable doesn't say anything about whether the process is running, and would make the start action fail. [if the initscript is not meant to be LSB compliant it should not be used as a Pacemaker RA, but that's a separate issue] [0] https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1810926 Title: initscript status check is too fragile To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/haproxy/+bug/1810926/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
