also sprach Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> [2010.03.01.0744 +0100]:
> I think lsb-base should be fixed, but I also think set -e in an init
> script is a bad idea. I would argue that specifically because running
> commands that fail is a normal and expected init script operation, unlike
> nearly every other shell script, so set -e just makes it harder to write a
> script that functions correctly according to Policy. It also makes the
> init script fragile in ways that are painfully hard to debug when things
> like the LSB functions don't account for set -e.
>
> I've personally run into three or four serious bugs in packages because of
> set -e, and I've never seen a case where having set -e prevented or
> diagnosed a problem that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
I still think set -e is a good idea, but I realise it boils down to
preference. If your experience is representative, then it's probably
better to advocate not setting set -e in init scripts.
What about maintainer scripts?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> Related projects:
: :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"president thieu says he'll quit if he doesn't get more than 50% of
the vote. in a democracy, that's not called quitting."
-- the washington post
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)