On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:31:24PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:38:19PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > > While I do think this is a nice solution, I've got a couple of concerns: > > > > - is this overkill? Would it be enough for the long running daemons to just > > register an interest in a file trigger on /usr/bin/perl ? This means > > minor perl upgrades will activate the trigger too, but that may well > > be a good thing - think of security fixes and the like. (OTOH, this > > approach doesn't help daemons embedding libperl...) > > As a consumer of the interface (ie the package wanting to be triggered) > I would prefer an explicit declaration of intent for the trigger, rather > than just watching /usr/bin/perl, for the specific instances where I can > know (or have a good hunch) that my software will break.
OK, I'm mostly convinced. (As I said that doesn't take much in this case :) I'd still like to see some adoption first. I suppose debtags search 'implemented-in::perl && interface::daemon' would be a good start in finding likely candidates. I suspect there aren't many: AFAICS the affected daemons are only those ones that don't load all their modules at startup, but rather require() them only when needed. Given the silence so far, if more affected packages are found I don't think this discussion should block filing wishlist bugs. OTOH, if spamassassin is the only package affected, do we really need a policy change at all? I'm not really opposed to it, and it could benefit future packages getting things right from the start, but it is a bit on the heavy side IMO... -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
