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

Re: Bug#346598: init script stop example should use --oknodo



On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 11:32:26PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > According to the LSB Core Specification 3.1

Which does not apply to Debian init scripts.

> > init scripts should
> > consider running stop on a service already stopped or not running
> > successful, but the example in policy does not behave this way because
> > it does not pass --oknodo to start-stop-daemon in the stop case.  The
> > attached patch makes it do so.
> 
> It must also use retry or some other way to make sure the daemon indeed
> stopped, and we should add a comment that you cannot use --exec if:
>  1. the daemon isn't an ELF executable (i.e. no #! stuff can use --exec)
>  2. the daemon could be running when its executable was replaced by a
>     package upgrade.
> 
> Or remove that error-inducing example completely and tell people to read
> /etc/init.d/skeleton (which is easier to fix than policy :-) ).

I'd say remove it. The whole 'Example' section appears to be
irrelevant to policy; policy is not a manual for how to create Debian
packages, and because of this, such examples tend to suck. I expect it
got added here for no particular reason.

I think that as a general rule, the policy process is ill-suited to
documenting anything. It's a reasonable way to create policy
requirements, and that's about it. Policy would probably be
significantly improved if all such sections were summarily torn out;
since this would by definition have no normative effect on policy, an
editor could just *do* it. Perhaps they could be moved into an
appendix.

...but frankly, the state of the appendices is poor, so I'm not
convinced that they have any business remaining in policy
anyway. Somebody who thinks they are worthwhile should write a new
document with them in. If nobody has presented themselves as willing
to do this (in the years since the appendices were added), surely that
is an indication that these texts are not worth keeping?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: