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

Re: Bug#619275: Perl Policy change to document major version upgrade trigger

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:38:19PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> While I do think this is a nice solution, I've got a couple of concerns:
> - is this overkill? Would it be enough for the long running daemons to just
>   register an interest in a file trigger on /usr/bin/perl ? This means
>   minor perl upgrades will activate the trigger too, but that may well
>   be a good thing - think of security fixes and the like. (OTOH, this
>   approach doesn't help daemons embedding libperl...)

As a consumer of the interface (ie the package wanting to be triggered)
I would prefer an explicit declaration of intent for the trigger, rather
than just watching /usr/bin/perl, for the specific instances where I can
know (or have a good hunch) that my software will break. The more
general problem of ensuring that all changes are reflected in running
processes is not something that I think we can tackle alone (it's not at
all perl-specific, unlike the problem this change is intended to solve).

The principle of least surprise probably applies here too. We shouldn't
(in an adhoc way, without distribution-wide take-up) be encouraging
daemons to stop and start when they would actually carry on working
without that action.

I would love to see some more general project infrastructure for ensuring
that the right daemons are given the chance to be restarted after *any*
upgrade of packages they depend on, but that's a separate issue.

> - is it too early to put this in policy? Generally policy documents existing
>   practice, but no package is using this yet. Should we wait for at least some
>   level of adoption, probably by filing wishlist bugs on known affected daemons
>   like spamassassin, and see how it works out first?

Yes, absolutely. I was anticipating having already filed a wishlist
bug at this point, but I was away from my main development system
which had my spamassassin patch on it, so ended up filing this bug
first :) Although I'd now like to be confident that we're doing the
right thing before filing bugs on other packages, so will wait for the
above discussion to pan out a bit first.

One of the reasons I worked on this was because I've been hit by
exactly this issue with spamassassin in the past; I'd appreciate
pointers for other software that would benefit from this change.


Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)

Reply to: