[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, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:15 -0800
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> > When failure to execute a hook leads to interface being
> > non-operational.

> Yes, that's probably a reasonable threshold.  What should packages
> like miredo and wide-dhcpv6-client do?  Both of these hooks have to
> do with routing information; if an interface comes up but the hook
> fails, the interface may be operational but not actually routing
> traffic to the networks the user cares about reaching.  Should these
> hooks exit non-zero on failure, or not?

Probably they should.

> Could this guidance be included in the ifupdown documentation as a
> clue to maintainers?

The problem is that it's entirely up to the maintainer of an
appropriate package; ifupdown doesn't really care what the hook script
is doing, so it's script maintainer who should decide if this
particular failure can be ignored (probably, with a warning) or if it's

> > This isn't a change in behaviour at all.

> Er, it most certainly is.  You may argue that the previous behavior
> was *wrong*, but it's just plain false to say that the behavior isn't
> changing.

There was a bug in ifupdown, but scripts must have been written with
this behaviour in mind.

> And the change is incompatible with at least some existing hook
> scripts, which means it's incumbent on you as the ifupdown maintainer
> to coordinate this behavior change with the maintainers of those
> other packages.  *Not* just filing a bug on "general", but actually
> following through on this transition to make sure things get fixed as
> needed.

Obviously I want this process to happen, but as a start a bug must be
filed, so discussion can start, no? I understand this exactly this way.

> > It does NOT involve all of those packages directly. Most of them do
> > things correctly, some don't. That's why I've asked all the
> > maintainers to do checks needed, just to make it easier, so people
> > review their packages only and don't go into deep of others'
> > packages.

> A bug filed against "general" is not an appropriate means of notifying
> package maintainers of anything at all.  "general" bugs are sent to
> debian-devel, which maintainers are not required to follow.

The idea was to make an announcement and to have some kind of a central
point where the status can be seen. Also, I don't feel it a good idea
to file bugs against packages not having them, and I can't physically
check all the packages on my own to decide if they have bugs or not.
Debian-devel seems to be the best place for this, I think.

> I think Holger is right that this needs to be done as a mass bug
> filing or other coordinated effort to review all of the hooks.

I'm open to suggestions how to perform this better; I tried to review
the packages from that list, but it's no easy task for me as I do not
maintain any of them, so I can easily miss some important detail.

That's why I asked for help here. Also, I wasn't going to push that
particular change until I'm sure that at least the most of the packages
don't have any problems with this.

WBR, Andrew

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: