[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#661591: packages providing ifupdown scripts must have those scripts fixed if needed

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

Reply to: