[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 28.02.2012 23:29, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

As you already noted, what is a proper exit code then?
I don't think a hook should return with a zero exit code if it actually
failed in a way.
If a hook failure should be fatal which will result in a interface not
being marked as active, we need a better way to signal that to ifupdown
then a simple non-zero return code, imo.


Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: