On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:55:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jesse Smith writes ("Bug#586709: Think I found the problem"):
> > [implementation details]
>
> Thanks for looking at this bug. I'm afraid I don't think I agree that
> it should be closed, though.
>
> AFAICT the user's complaint is that, when halt or poweroff actually
> invoke shutdown, the actual halt/poweroff action is chosen differently
> to the situation when halt or poweroff does the work itself.
Aye, it's like /bin/sh vs bash or dash. The default is to run dash, yet
even if the user switched sh to bash, explicitly invoking "dash" should run
it.
> I think the best solution here would *not* be to attempt to describe
> the current actual behaviour in the manpages. Rather, it would be to
> try to write down what the desired behaviour would be, and then
> document and implement it.
I agree, and what the original reported wrote sounds the most intuitive to
me.
> > Long answer: The script is basically set up to work on auto-pilot and
> > use /etc/default/halt as the only way to pass in parameters.
That's an implementation detail; those provide inertia (it's more work to
change things, and any change risks breaking other, intended, behaviour) but
can't replace design.
> If necessary (which seems likely), halt(8) could leave a dropping in
> /run or something to tell the init script what to do.
Or an env var, or invoke a command directly, or ...
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ 10 people enter a bar: 1 who understands binary,
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ 1 who doesn't, D who prefer to write it as hex,
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ and 1 who narrowly avoided an off-by-one error.
