On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 11:32:23AM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote: > On Sat, 07 May 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > > What is the intent behind this undocumented change in the package? > > --- backupninja-0.5.orig/etc/cron.d/backupninja > > +++ backupninja-0.5/etc/cron.d/backupninja > > @@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ > > PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin > > > > # run backupninja every hour on the hour > > -00 * * * * root if [ -x /usr/sbin/backupninja -a -f /etc/backupninja.conf ]; then /usr/sbin/backupninja; fi > > +00 * * * * root if [ -x /usr/sbin/backupninja ]; then /usr/sbin/backupninja; fi > This change is actually part of the documented change in the > changelog (pasted here for ease of reference: > * Implemented fix to cause fatal errors in the backupninja script > itself to be reported, rather than be silently ignored (Closes: #307620) > The bug reporter correctly took issue with the fact that if there was > a fatal error in the backupninja script, there would be no report > generated indicating this. Fatal errors are: > 1. Permission problems in /etc/backup.d > 2. Permission problems on /etc/backupninja.con > 3. Improper script directory specified in config > or, most importantly to this discussion: > 4. Missing /etc/backupninja.conf > The script itself has an error reporting mechanism that would spit out > an error if /etc/backupninja.conf was missing. However, the cronjob > was setup such that it tested to see if the /etc/backupninja.conf file > existed, and if not it would simply not run (and not report this as a > fatal error). This means that if the initial cron statement were kept > in, the bug would still exist. By removing this duplicate check from > the cronjob, the check is left to the script itself which will report > an error if the configuration file does not exist. Understood, and approved. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature