On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:59:25PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 02:04:24PM +0000, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/557177
> > This doesn't appear to be a bug in Upstart.
> Strictly, no, but there was a surprising amount of resistance to adding
> some boilerplate to that script to something sane when MOUNTPOINT was
> undefined.
No, there was not. See comment #24:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/557177/comments/24
That script is not in the upstart package. If the bug should have been
fixed by changing the mountall package, then a bug report against upstart is
indeed "invalid".
And an observation that you shouldn't randomly run scripts from early boot
on a running system without understanding what they do ("Don't Do That
Then"), while not the most helpful remark to make to someone who just
stepped on a land mine and deleted their whole filesystem, doesn't actually
say anything about whether he was resistant to adding that boilerplate. The
mountall fix was pushed to the VCS the same day the bug came to Scott's
attention.
Scott had an idiosyncratic approach for handling bug flow, and his "bedside
manner" when dealing with external bug reporters was occasionally less than
perfect; but nothing here warrants excoriating him as being cavalier towards
users' data.
--
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