Hello, On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:27:15 -0800 Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote:
> > When failure to execute a hook leads to interface being > > non-operational. > Yes, that's probably a reasonable threshold. What should packages > like miredo and wide-dhcpv6-client do? Both of these hooks have to > do with routing information; if an interface comes up but the hook > fails, the interface may be operational but not actually routing > traffic to the networks the user cares about reaching. Should these > hooks exit non-zero on failure, or not? Probably they should. > Could this guidance be included in the ifupdown documentation as a > clue to maintainers? The problem is that it's entirely up to the maintainer of an appropriate package; ifupdown doesn't really care what the hook script is doing, so it's script maintainer who should decide if this particular failure can be ignored (probably, with a warning) or if it's critical. > > This isn't a change in behaviour at all. > Er, it most certainly is. You may argue that the previous behavior > was *wrong*, but it's just plain false to say that the behavior isn't > changing. There was a bug in ifupdown, but scripts must have been written with this behaviour in mind. > And the change is incompatible with at least some existing hook > scripts, which means it's incumbent on you as the ifupdown maintainer > to coordinate this behavior change with the maintainers of those > other packages. *Not* just filing a bug on "general", but actually > following through on this transition to make sure things get fixed as > needed. Obviously I want this process to happen, but as a start a bug must be filed, so discussion can start, no? I understand this exactly this way. > > It does NOT involve all of those packages directly. Most of them do > > things correctly, some don't. That's why I've asked all the > > maintainers to do checks needed, just to make it easier, so people > > review their packages only and don't go into deep of others' > > packages. > A bug filed against "general" is not an appropriate means of notifying > package maintainers of anything at all. "general" bugs are sent to > debian-devel, which maintainers are not required to follow. The idea was to make an announcement and to have some kind of a central point where the status can be seen. Also, I don't feel it a good idea to file bugs against packages not having them, and I can't physically check all the packages on my own to decide if they have bugs or not. Debian-devel seems to be the best place for this, I think. > I think Holger is right that this needs to be done as a mass bug > filing or other coordinated effort to review all of the hooks. I'm open to suggestions how to perform this better; I tried to review the packages from that list, but it's no easy task for me as I do not maintain any of them, so I can easily miss some important detail. That's why I asked for help here. Also, I wasn't going to push that particular change until I'm sure that at least the most of the packages don't have any problems with this. -- WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
