Re: Bug#19129: sendmail: support PPP links --- use /etc/ppp/ip-up.d
Adam P. Harris writes:
> > This is not policy, and for good reason: the ip-up.d idea does
> > not seem to have been thought through.
>
> Your opinion; not the opinion of the great mass of people on
> debian-devel, the exim maintainer, the ppp maintainer, the fetchmail
> maintainer, and myself.
I second Manoj here. I objected to have uncontrolled scripts in
ip-*.d/, but the ppp maintainer decided to implement that the way it
is now, without discussing it any futher. That's IMHO a shame.
> If you disagree with the concept of
> /etc/ppp/ip-up.d, then I suggest you review the January conversations
> on debian-devel (which was unanimously approving, if you'll please
> note, Manoj), think it over, and maybe submit a bug against ppp or a
> followup to debian-devel?
No, it was not. I, as an example, was quite against doing it the way
it is, though I still find the concept interesting.
> As for the MTA, why on earth would you *not* want the MTA to fire off
> the mail queue when the link comes up? (And MTAs were the majority of
> the targets for my wishes here). I'm sitting here scratching my head
> and wonding why you wouldn't want outbound mail to in fact get a kick
> in the butt and go out when the link comes up, and say I have multiple
> links, what's the big bother?
For example if the MTA is already configured such as to have diald put
the link on on every message. It may not be acceptable when we pay
phone calls, but may in the US.
> > If the directory and scripts make things easier for people,
> > Fine. But there should be a means of turning thisng on and off
> > easily.
>
> Yuh! That's why I suggested they be conffiles! And hey, they're
> even under /etc. ;)
Then you should have suggested a script with the command commented out
by default.
> > I suggest that there be a File in /etc/ppp/IP-config or
> > something. Then have all scripts in ip-{up,down}.d/ look for
> > ^sendmail.*UP=YES and ^sendmail.*DOWN=YES to run things in the
> > respective states.
>
> Blah, blech. We don't have that for cron, we don't have it for
> init.d. What the heck is wrong with chmod a-x <file>?
That's AFAIK not detected by dpkg, which AFAIK only checks for
file contents ?
And it's not because we don't have it for other similar mechanisms
that these mechanisms wouldn't benefit for such an improvement
themselves. Some generic support for this type of thing would be
nice.
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@a2points.com> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <dirson@univ-mlv.fr> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
Reply to: