Decklin Foster wrote: > What's your opinion between: > > - Making this condition not an error (daemon just prints warning and > exits... seems like cheating)
I think it's fairly common behavior for daemons in debian that need preconfiguration. > - Using some other error code, and checking for it in the init script to > provide a better warning (this one could theoretically mention that > you can use debconf, but that's a bit too chatty i think) I didn't see any debconf prompting, is it at low priority? I use the standard priority, high. > - Not using the standard dh_installinit stanza, and handling errors in > some other way there (yuck) Yuck. > - Adding something to test for the existence of a config first (eh. > buncha code, race condition.) Race condition? You could also just use a defaults file with a thing that needs to be frobbed to turn it on, although needing to remember to edit that could be annoying. > Leaning towards the second one, I guess. What error message would you > have liked to have seen? Anything that doesn't make dpkg mark it unconfigured is ok by me, really. > (Of course, alternatively to all of this, I could make the questions > priority "high" on the basis that the daemon can't do anything without > this info, but that's a little ridiculous. (I am not in any way > considering it.) You *should* be able to do what you were attempting to > do.) High is actually a valid priority for these questions, since they don't have a reasonable default. Unless it's argued that not doing anything is a reasonable default. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
