Hello, Helmut Grohne, on 2021-06-24: > I solicit feedback on this summary and approach. Barring unforseen > issues, I plan to open a bug against debianutils to incorporate the > change and once implemented opening bugs against all shell providers at > normal severity to convert their add-shell/remove-shell calls to > declarative ones and at rc-severity for not retaining local changes. > Deferring those bugs post bullseye seems sensible to me as fixing those > add-shell calls now and later turning them into declarative instructions > seems like double effort. While the behaviour is not policy-compliant > now, the number of people running into it must be fairly small.
Thanks Helmut for having taken the time to formalize this. I do appreciate Guillem's proposal as well, and I agree with Sam that your approach is sound. Is there some place where the present code for update-shell is hosted? I think I caught a typo, given the unconditionnal: > : > "$NEW_STATE_FILE" I believe that instead of checking for the NEW_STATE_FILE here below: > if [ "$NOACT" = 0 ]; then > if [ -e "$NEW_STATE_FILE" ]; then ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > chmod --reference="$STATE_FILE" "$NEW_STATE_FILE" > chown --reference="$STATE_FILE" "$NEW_STATE_FILE" you probably meant to check for the existence of the STATE_FILE, this way: > if [ -e "$STATE_FILE" ]; then ^^^^^^^^^^^ In hope this helps, Have a nice day, :) -- Étienne Mollier <emoll...@emlwks999.eu> Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/4, please excuse my verbosity.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature