Hello,
Helmut Grohne, on 2021-06-24:
> I solicit feedback on this summary and approach. Barring unforseen
> issues, I plan to open a bug against debianutils to incorporate the
> change and once implemented opening bugs against all shell providers at
> normal severity to convert their add-shell/remove-shell calls to
> declarative ones and at rc-severity for not retaining local changes.
> Deferring those bugs post bullseye seems sensible to me as fixing those
> add-shell calls now and later turning them into declarative instructions
> seems like double effort. While the behaviour is not policy-compliant
> now, the number of people running into it must be fairly small.
Thanks Helmut for having taken the time to formalize this. I do
appreciate Guillem's proposal as well, and I agree with Sam that
your approach is sound.
Is there some place where the present code for update-shell is
hosted? I think I caught a typo, given the unconditionnal:
> : > "$NEW_STATE_FILE"
I believe that instead of checking for the NEW_STATE_FILE here
below:
> if [ "$NOACT" = 0 ]; then
> if [ -e "$NEW_STATE_FILE" ]; then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> chmod --reference="$STATE_FILE" "$NEW_STATE_FILE"
> chown --reference="$STATE_FILE" "$NEW_STATE_FILE"
you probably meant to check for the existence of the STATE_FILE,
this way:
> if [ -e "$STATE_FILE" ]; then
^^^^^^^^^^^
In hope this helps,
Have a nice day, :)
--
Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu>
Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/4, please excuse my verbosity.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature