* Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> [170111 22:51]: > However, I glanced over the diff between > apcupsd_3.14.14-0.2.debian.tar.xz and the proposed > apcupsd_3.14.14-0.3.debian.tar.xz: the only thing that looks suspicious > is that the apcupsd.service file seems to lack any check for the > ISCONFIGURED variable in /etc/default/apcupsd (unlike apcupsd.init, > which aborts whenever that variable is not set to "yes"). > > Is this intentional? > I think that the check should be implemented somehow...
It's intentional for the test packages. I did not want to spend time on implementing that if the proposed change doesn't work in the first place. Suggestions on the actual implementation also welcome ;-) (TBH, if I did this package anew today, I'd probably just install with the service disabled/masked and not do the ISCONFIGURED dance, but it's not a new package and it's not my package...) -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-
