On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:47:16PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > subsequent hooks. OTOH, there might be cases where that's beneficial > > because it lets a critical hook declare that an interface bring-up hasn't > > succeeded and the interface bring-up should be rolled back so the admin can > > try again. > If that is the only use-case for this change (and I can't come up with a > better argument for this change either), I'd prefer if we use a > dedicated return code for this case. That's sloppy. There are no "reserved" error codes to draw on here; any possible error code you want to use for this could have a collision with a return code an existing script is already using in the case of some error that should be considered non-fatal. The only responsible thing to do here is to review all the hook scripts and correct them in a coordinated fashion. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature