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

Re: Re: really? (Debian Policy and LSB)

Le 11.04.2012 22:04, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
>> Hmm... This contradicts section 6.1 of the Debian policy.
>> "The package management system looks at the exit status from these
>> scripts. It is important that they exit with a non-zero status if
> Here "these scripts" refer to "package maintainer scripts"
> ({pre,post}{inst,rm}) and not to "init scripts". So there's no
> contradiction.
> The problem of using "set -e" in init script is even documented
> in policy 9.3.2:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-writing-init

For what is worth, this has been discussed at length in #546743 and is
now documented as the #661002 bug against lsb-base.

Please note that #661002 "lsb-base:/lib/lsb/init-functions may fail if
`set -e` is used" is tagged as +help: patches are welcome and could
eventually lead to a fix in policy.

(Deciding whether energy should be put in functions for SysVinit is up
to each reader.)



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: