Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
THanks, I could come up with a transition plan myself if needed. But
compare your suggestions with: someone goes over all init scripts, file
bugs and in lenny+1 we're done.
That'll cause tremendous pain for
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
THanks, I could come up with a transition plan myself if needed. But
compare your suggestions with: someone goes over all init scripts, file
bugs and in lenny+1 we're done.
That'll cause tremendous pain for backporters. I'm
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 11:02:13PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
I think being LSB compliant is good for Debian.
That may be so; but changing a long-standing interface with no migration
is /not/ good for Debian.
--
Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel,
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008, Vincent Danjean wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm reluctant to change the default behaviour of start-stop-daemon at this
point. What do other people think of making --oknodo the default behaviour
and adding a new option to force the current default behaviour (exit with
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:40:53PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The option --oknodo changes the behaviour to the LSB recomendations but
many services in Debian don't use this option and return 1 in the case
I've quotted. This is very problematic for me when I try to use a Debian
service
Right, expanding on my previous comments:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 11:02:13PM +0200, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
The alternative is to change policy and/or lintian to ensure that packages
are using --oknodo unless they have a good reason not to.
[1] LSB specifications about init script
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:47:39 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think being LSB compliant is good for Debian.
The LSB init script specification *is a specification for the init scripts
of LSB packages*. It has NOTHING to do with LSB compliance of LSB
implementations. Debian is an LSB
Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm reluctant to change the default behaviour of start-stop-daemon at this
point. What do other people think of making --oknodo the default behaviour
and adding a new option to force the current default behaviour (exit with
failure if nothing had to be done)?
I think
(Cc -devel to seek input)
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Acording to the LSB specifications for init scripts [1]:
For all other init-script actions, the init script shall return an exit
status of zero if the action was successful. Otherwise, the exit status
shall be
El Jueves, 3 de Julio de 2008, Raphael Hertzog escribió:
I'm reluctant to change the default behaviour of start-stop-daemon at this
point. What do other people think of making --oknodo the default behaviour
and adding a new option to force the current default behaviour (exit with
failure if
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.13.25
Severity: important
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686
Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8
Hi.
attached an patch
dpkg version: 1.14.4
Cheers.
Javi.
--- utils/start-stop-daemon.c 2007-05-15 14:33:25.0 +0200
+++ utils/start-stop-daemon.new.c 2007-05-31 19:37:47.0 +0200
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
static int testmode = 0;
static int quietmode = 0;
-static int exitnodo = 1;
Sorry, it's the right, after a discussion in debian-user-spanish list.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-spanish/2007/05/msg01358.html
--oknodo is redundant (default behaviour), but it should go on to be
consistent with the dæmons...
Attached the patch.
Cheers.
Javi.
---
13 matches
Mail list logo
