On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 03:49:48PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:39:36AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes: > > Holger> I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm > > Holger> tagging it moreinfo. > > My reading of the TC and debian-devel discussion was that this was at > > least a reasonable thing for maintainers to do, > can you give pointers? > > and whether it should be done depended on the circumstances. > I do agree with that. I'm more against a general recommendation, depending > on the circumstances, it's the right thing to do. FWIW I think that it's the wrong thing to do if the "circumstances" include reverse-dependencies on the package which expect to interact with the service the package provides, as these packages may themselves do such interaction in the maintainer script, resulting in cascading damage. And the decision for whether there are reverse-dependencies on your package is non-local and asynchronous. Therefore I think it's always wrong for a package's postinst to exit 0 if: - it ships a service, - it is a new install or an upgrade on a system where the service was previously started successfully, and - the service fails to start in the postinst. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature