2009/7/1 Martin Maney > > the solution Martin has proposed can only be considered as a temporary > local > > fix (ie on your boxes but not for an upload) for affected users, for the > > reason I mentioned in the Debian bug linked. > > Not disagreeing, but frankly I can't see any very great value in the > additional check of the flag file. Just curious: has there in fact > been trouble with that? It seems to me that a bug like the current one > is already more cost than the dubious benefit of double checking, but of > course I've been bitten by one and not the other! :-/ >
you're right that the double check is too much, and only due to legacy and not enough time to make 100 % clean things (that's really a minor point). relying only on "upsmon -K" is sufficient, since it looks itself for the POWERDOWNFLAG existence *and* validity. the validity (magic string) test is harnessing the UPS poweroff, thus telling *securely* if we need to issue an UPS poweroff (upsdrvctl shutdown). not doing that can lead to security breach... Note that I'm preparing a Debian upload (2.4.1-4), introducing the new nut-clients packages, and fixing the above... Arnaud -- NUT fails to shutdown UPS https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/381269 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to nut in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
