Hi Mathias, On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:44:50PM -0500, Mathias Gug wrote: > Package: samba > Version: 3.0.26a-1 > Tags: patch > User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Usertags: origin-ubuntu ubuntu-patch hardy
> If the samba configuration is broken, the postinst script fails. I've attached > a patch that add true as the error-handler when restarting samba. > First reported in Ubuntu: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/85194 > diff -pruN 3.0.26a-1/debian/rules 3.0.26a-1ubuntu2/debian/rules > --- 3.0.26a-1/debian/rules 2007-10-04 09:08:53.000000000 +0100 > +++ 3.0.26a-1ubuntu2/debian/rules 2007-10-04 09:08:11.000000000 +0100 > @@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ binary-arch: build install > dh_installexamples > dh_installlogrotate > dh_installlogcheck > - DH_OPTIONS= dh_installinit -psamba -- "defaults 20 19" > + DH_OPTIONS= dh_installinit -psamba --error-handler=true -- "defaults 20 > 19" > DH_OPTIONS= dh_installinit -pwinbind > dh_installcron > for pkg in samba smbfs winbind; do \ This doesn't look like correct behavior to me. Conceptually, I don't believe that packages should declare themselves to be "configured" when their config is left in a detectably broken state; I think this should be handled through the packaging system itself rather than having the packaging system declare the package "ok" and leave the admin to detect the problem out of band. Yes, it can be a problem for apt when packages fail to configure; but why is the samba package's configuration broken in the first place? The argument given in the Ubuntu bug report, that "we are not following the packaging policy when the postinst assumes that we should have a correct config file from another package", is false; samba and samba-common are cooperating packages, and one of the main purposes of the samba-common package is to manage the smb.conf file on behalf of samba. But of course samba-common doesn't contain enough information to ascertain for itself that the config on disk is usable by smbd, so it's up to the samba package to complain when this is not the case. Do you disagree with this position? I would in any case be interested to know for sure why the original bug submitter had an smbd that wouldn't start; the follow-up from Mantas is fairly speculative about the cause of the failure, it's entirely possible that this change has only papered over whatever the original submitter's problem was. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
