On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Here's a tweak that I think flows a little better:
[...]
>
> The init.d scripts must ensure that they will
> - behave sensibly if invoked with start when the
> - service is already running, or with stop when it
> -
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Here's a tweak that I think flows a little better:
> [...]
>>
>> The init.d scripts must ensure that they will
>> -behave sensibly if invoked with start when the
>> -service
2008/7/4 Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> In the above case which is the "bad" init script?:
>
> lighttpd obviously. It's not a sensible behaviour to fail when asked to
> start a service that is already running.
>
>> - lighttpd uses LSB specs.
>
> This seems to contradict what you told us b
"\"Iñaki" Baz Castillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op, sorry, I meant that "lighttpd DOESN'T use LSB specs but Debian
> specs".
>
> You say that "it's not a sensible behaviour to fail when asked to start
> a service that is already running" but this is the default behaviour of
> Debian init
> Note that /etc/init.d/skeleton, on which many init scripts in Debian are
> based, handles this case correctly without using --oknodo.
Are you sure? These are the "start" and "stop" sections of skeleton
file in a Debian Etch:
-
do_start()
{
# Return
# 0 if daemon ha
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> > Note that /etc/init.d/skeleton, on which many init scripts in Debian are
> > based, handles this case correctly without using --oknodo.
>
> Are you sure? These are the "start" and "stop" sections of skeleton
> file in a Debian Etch:
No those are
2008/7/6 Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No those are functions... the main code runs without "set -e" and thus doesn't
> fail on the error and the return value of the function is checked:
>
>do_start
>case "$?" in
>0|1) [ "$VERBOSE" != no ] && log_end_msg 0
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
reassign 426877 debian-policy 3.8.0.1
retitle 426877 Clarify what "sensible behaviour" is for init scripts
thanks
Ok, this confirms my initial feeling. Changing this in dpkg would require
a wide-scale testing and much effort for little gains since the p
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Here's a try (against current master branch):
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index c9bd84f..772afce 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -5946,9 +5946,11 @@ rmdir /usr/local/share/emacs 2>/dev/null || true
> The init
El Viernes, 4 de Julio de 2008, Raphael Hertzog escribió:
> Ok, this confirms my initial feeling. Changing this in dpkg would require
> a wide-scale testing and much effort for little gains since the policy
> already require packages to behave sensibly.
It seems that some services return 0 and oth
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> # lighttpd running:
> ~# /etc/init.d/lighttpd start ; echo $?
> * Starting web server lighttpd
> [fail]
> 1
[...]
> > Iñaki, if you ever encounter
> > bad init scripts, please report bugs against the offending packages.
>
> In the above case which
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 11:59:31AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> reassign 426877 debian-policy 3.8.0.1
> retitle 426877 Clarify what "sensible behaviour" is for init scripts
> thanks
> Ok, this confirms my initial feeling. Changing this in dpkg would require
> a wide-scale testing and much effo
12 matches
Mail list logo
