Re: On init in Debian
Bernd Zeimetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 03/20/2012 10:49 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't agree. I'm happy to trade frequency of problems for more
>> difficult debugging in the rare cases that problems still happen.
> How can you be sure that such problems will happen less often?
I apply basic principles of software design, the exact same ones that lead
me to use standard libc functions instead of inventing my own wheels
because, indeed, when one does that, problems will happen less often.
I plan on relying on the fact that using common infrastructure means that
lots of other people have been testing and debugging that infrastructure
for you, which means that it's going to be considerably more robust and
cope with more of the corner cases than that thing I wrote as a one-off to
solve my immediate problem.
I'm a bit surprised that I even have to say this, since to me this is
obvious to the point of triviality.
> What if a problem is not solvable by editing a config file?
What happens when you have a problem with libc that isn't solvable by
editing a config file? Or with any other package in Debian? Well, first
you try to debug it using the tools available, and if you can't figure out
what's going on, you file a bug.
>> I also don't agree with this, for what it's worth.
> Common init scripts are short enough to make them easy to debug.
Speaking as someone who has debugged a *lot* of init scripts over the past
15+ years, I continue to disagree with this.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>