On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:51:11PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > Russ> Ivan Baldo <iba...@adinet.com.uy> writes: > >> What should happen if installing a package and then when it tries > >> to start its service it fails? > > >> Currently the most common behaviour seems to be that the > >> installation fails. > > >> But is that the best outcome? > > Russ> Currently, Policy leaves this to the discretion of the package > Russ> maintainer. To change that, what will be needed here is not > Russ> just an argument that other behaviors besides failing > Russ> installation might be desirable, but that there is a > Russ> compelling need to standardize this behavior across the entire > Russ> archive instead of leaving it to the discretion of the > Russ> maintainer. > > I find this issue tends to come up a lot more than it used to. The > issue is that systemd units tend to track a lot more errors than init > scripts. So, in Jessie, there tend to be a lot more cases where a > package will fail to install under the same situations where in wheezy > it'd install fine. The problem is made more complex by debhelper, which > makes it somewhat annoying (especially in dh 7 mode) to express this > maintainer preference. So, you have a lot of dh7 packages that suddenly > got much more picky because people created service units.
In general, packages maintainer scripts should not fail without a compelling reason. A package installation failure leaves the packaging system in a state where it is much harder to recover from problems. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org