unsubscribe adsupply@gte.net
----------
> From: Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>
> To: Adam P. Harris <apharris@onshore.com>;
debian-policy@lists.debian.org; 19129@bugs.debian.org;
19130@bugs.debian.org; 19131@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#19129: sendmail: support PPP links --- use
/etc/ppp/ip-up.d
> Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 9:12 AM
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd just like to make my position (as ppp maintainer) clear on this
ip-up/down
> issue (I've been off skiing for a week, so have not been able to get
involved
> before this).
>
> People seem to be drawing a couple of false conclusions from the fact
that I
> changed the ip-up/down scripts to use run-parts:
>
> a) I made some sort of unilateral policy decision about how ip-up/down
> scripts should work.
>
> b) I was sanctioning all and sundry to include ip-(up|down).d/ scripts
in
> their packages, so that every time the ppp link came up all hell
would
> break loose.
>
> I don't consider either of these to be the true.
>
> As in ppp shipped the ip-up/down scripts do nothing. This was the case
before
> the inclusion the run-parts line, and it still is. The intent (as it
always
> was) is that the script was provided as a hint for a local sysadmin to
aid
> them in setting up their ppp connection.
>
> I doubt very much if there is a single package that could justify having
> anything run by ip-up/down by default, without at least asking the user
in the
> postinst if that was what they required. Any package that does install
such a
> script is almost certainly a bug IMHO.
>
> I for one have a diald setup that includes over twenty dial-on-demand
links,
> only on of which is to my ISP. I certainly don't want to kick my MTA
each
> time I dial into one of my clients, because it would make diald go nuts,
and I
> cannot see the point of doing bind reloads either (although I don't
suppose it
> would do any harm).
>
> If people think they have a package that needs something to be run by
ppp's
> ip-up/down they should either put something about it in their packages
README,
> or include an example script under /usr/doc, or perhaps prompt the user
about
> it in their packages postinst. This was the case before I included the
> run-parts line, and I don't see how I've changed that.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced by the /etc/ppp/ip.conf idea. It's fine
for
> simple setups, but if you are going to have to hack scripts to
conditionally
> start depending upon which ppp link just came up, then the simple ON/OFF
> switch is pretty worthless.
>
> I would be much happier if packages provided example scripts that the
sysadmin
> could either just copy into place, or edit to suit their needs. I
suppose
> they can always suggest installing a script in the postinst, if the
package
> maintainer thinks it would be useful for the vast majority of users.
>
> It would be nice if we could make it so that a new linux user could get
an
> Internet connection up after a few minutes of point-and-drool, without
making
> life hard for the people that have weird and wonderful setups (like Manoj
and
> me).
>
> Perhaps we need a configuration file /etc/userlevel, which contains
something
> ranging from ``neophyte'' to ``guru'', so postinst's can decide what to
ask
> the user. ;-)
>
> Cheers, Phil.
>
Reply to: