Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to starto

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Note that the TC declining to rule on an issue does not override the policy 
> group right to make
> a determination on that issue. So we are back to the situation before the 
> referral to the TC.
 
do you think #801065 should be assigned from developers-reference to
debian-policy?


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

It's climate crime, not climate change.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to starto

[Bill Allombert]

O#n Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 04:47:37PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> retitle -1 turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with failures
> thanks
> 
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:26:58AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > The TC bug is 904558.
> 
> thank you very much for this pointer, that's a pretty good discussion,
> which resulted in
> 
> -
> 
> So, the TC declines to rule on what should maintscripts do when failing 
> to
> (re)start a service (or otherwise encountering a similarly serious
> problem).
> 
> -
> (read the full result at 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904558#137 )

Note that the TC declining to rule on an issue does not override the policy 
group right to make
a determination on that issue. So we are back to the situation before the 
referral to the TC.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here.