Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:48:52AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The test for the presence of dotlockfile is incorrect. It fails to
> detect if dotlockfile is not installed.
Thanks for spotting this.
> if [ -x $(which dotlockfile) ]; then
> ...
> else
> echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running
> aide"
> fi
I'll probably remove the check since aide depends on liblockfile1 in
these days, and thus dotlockfile is guaranteed to be present.
Objections?
> The developers reference contains some suggestions for dealing with
> this type of situation.
>
>
> http://www.us.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-debian-maint-scripts
Yes, and it also says that using which is an acceptable alternative
for scripts that don't run early in system startup.
> Here is a suggested fix based upon those recommendations. Although
> many other good solutions also exist.
>
> pathfind() {
> OLDIFS="$IFS"
> IFS=:
> for p in $PATH; do
> if [ -x "$p/$*" ]; then
> IFS="$OLDIFS"
> return 0
> fi
> done
> IFS="$OLDIFS"
> return 1
> }
>
> if pathfind dotlockfile; then
> if ! dotlockfile -p -l $LOCKFILE; then
> echo >&2 "cannot obtain lock $LOCKFILE, stale lock?"
> exit 1
> fi
> else
> echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running
> aide"
> fi
I hate that idea. Huge complexity added.
Greetings
Marc
--
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect
Marc Haber wrote: > I'll probably remove the check since aide depends on liblockfile1 in > these days, and thus dotlockfile is guaranteed to be present. > Objections? That would be fine. Anything that simplifies the script is a good thing in my mind. > Yes, and it also says that using which is an acceptable alternative > for scripts that don't run early in system startup. In Debian use of 'which' is fine. (On Debian 'which' is a shell script with different behavior than traditional systems. On other systems 'which' is a csh script and has different behavior not suitable to this task. But on Debian it is fine.) > I hate that idea. Huge complexity added. I am okay with the use of 'which' to detect the command. As it was I was simply following the published guidelines. Avoiding this entirely and using the package dependency I like better. But since the test was there in the script I assumed that it was the maintainer's preference to have a test there. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:34:31AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:48:52AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > The test for the presence of dotlockfile is incorrect. It fails to > > detect if dotlockfile is not installed. > > Thanks for spotting this. > > > if [ -x $(which dotlockfile) ]; then > > ... > > else > > echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already > > running aide" > > fi > > I'll probably remove the check since aide depends on liblockfile1 in > these days, and thus dotlockfile is guaranteed to be present. > Objections? otoh, if command -v dotlockfile >/dev/null 2&>1; then ... else echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running aide" fi seems to do the job. Can you verify? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect
Marc Haber wrote: > otoh, > > if command -v dotlockfile >/dev/null 2&>1; then >... > else >echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running > aide" > fi > > seems to do the job. Can you verify? Your new code suggestion works fine and is an idiom that I have used often in shell scripts. So if you are okay with it then I am too. I am not aware of any situation in Debian (for example /bin/sh is really ash, dash, etc.) where this does not work okay. If I recall correctly the use of 'command -v' is an XSI extension. I have seen people object to using XSI extensions previously. (shrug.) I could go either way on this and do not have a strong preference. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:43:54AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > I am okay with the use of 'which' to detect the command. As it was I > was simply following the published guidelines. Avoiding this entirely > and using the package dependency I like better. But since the test > was there in the script I assumed that it was the maintainer's > preference to have a test there. If I recall correctly, the hard dependency on liblockfile1 was added pretty recently. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect
tags #367333 confirmed pending thanks On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:51:05AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > if command -v dotlockfile >/dev/null 2&>1; then >... > else >echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running > aide" > fi > > seems to do the job. Can you verify? I have decided to keep the dotlockfile presence check with the new, correct command -v idiom and have committed the change to svn. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
