Re: Bug#406231: ppp_2.4.4rel-5 patch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 18 January 2007 10:33, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
>>> db_input high ppp/username || true
>>> -db_go || true
>>> +db_go || exit 30
>> What is the difference induced by return code 30? Will it make the
>> installation fail if ran non-interactively and this data is not
>> (I don't seem to be able to find again the codes and their meaning for
>> main-menu, although I found it in the past.)
> With "true" you are saying: just continue whatever the user does, which is
> broken. The || exit 30 should make the script exit to the main menu if
> the user selects the <GoBack> button, but will leave ppp marked as
> unconfigured. It would be better to have a state engine in the script
Thanks for the clarification.
> that goes back to a previous question, but that is something for
>>> +# PPPoE connection
>>> +auto provider
>>> +iface provider inet ppp
>>> + pre-up /sbin/ifconfig $ETH up
> Hmm. This should be $IFACE, not $ETH. Please fix that.
>> (Just checking)
>> In order for this to work, the interface name should be preserved. This
>> happens, AFAIK, even for interfaces which are not configured, right?
> I'm not completely sure. If I understand you correctly, preserving the
> name is something that is done by udev and I'm not sure if that covers
> your use case too. Marco can probably tell you.
Yes, he did. Is preserved.
>> Why change the name of the script in the source package _and_ the name
>> in the d-i environment? Wouldn't it make more sense to rename it
>> directly in the source? (I suggest 30ppp-udeb-config.) This would also
>> save some source code reader (later) the trouble to understand where
>> did the config-target-ppp file went.
> Because it is somewhat more flexible this way. Not including the number in
> the source file means it is easier to change the number if needed.
> You can still see what went where by grepping in the source for whatever
> current name. However, it all makes no real difference. The name "30ppp"
I chose ppp-udeb-postbaseinst in the source, and will be copied to 30ppp in
> is most consistent with other scripts already in post-base-installer.d.
> IMO the layout in the source file (dumping everything in the "extra"
> directory) is not really the clearest solution...
>> Not sure if copying the whole /etc/ppp/peers/ directory isn't a better
>> idea (in the style of what is done with the configuration files from
> Why? What other files are there that need to be copied?
I think the options file is a good one, if the user hacks on it during
install. I don't remember exactly, but there might be others. I'll look into
>> d-i). Having that in mind, aren't the configuration files already
>> copied in the target *with* the correct permissions when this script is
> No. The ppp dir is copied nowhere else and copying this way _only_ works
> because the files pap/chap-secrets and peers/provider already exist in
> _/target_ because the ppp deb installs default files there that already
> have the correct permissions. The provider file in the d-i environment
> does not have the correct premissions (wrong group).
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix that in the target and make sure the
permissions and group is ok? Is there a way to create groups in the target
(something in the style of apt-install)?
Also creating the target directory and quitting seems more intelligent than
just quitting if not found?
I merged your changes in my darcs repo. I'll test these changes and report
 can be duplicated with:
darcs get --set-scripts-executable
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----