> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst writes:
Wouter> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:38:10PM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
>> > > > - the service fails to start in the postinst.
>>
>> This implies that "the service is running" is part of "the
>> service is configured", which is where I
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 02:38:10PM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > > > - the service fails to start in the postinst.
>
> This implies that "the service is running" is part of "the service is
> configured", which is where I disagree.
What Steve said is that if
- The service fails to start, *AND*
* Steve Langasek [230214 13:09]:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek [230212 00:03]:
> > > FWIW I think that it's the wrong thing to do if the "circumstances"
> > > include
> > > reverse-dependencies on the package which expect to interact with t
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [230212 00:03]:
> > FWIW I think that it's the wrong thing to do if the "circumstances" include
> > reverse-dependencies on the package which expect to interact with the
> > service the package provides, as these pac
* Steve Langasek [230212 00:03]:
> FWIW I think that it's the wrong thing to do if the "circumstances" include
> reverse-dependencies on the package which expect to interact with the
> service the package provides, as these packages may themselves do such
> interaction in the maintainer script, re
On Sat, 2023-02-11 at 21:12 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> An interesting problem case is a package whose point is to run a service,
> but which requires mandatory and not-automatable setup before the service
> can usefully run. After package installation, the service cannot start.
> So the options
Steve Langasek writes:
> Therefore I think it's always wrong for a package's postinst to exit 0 if:
> - it ships a service,
> - it is a new install or an upgrade on a system where the service was
>previously started successfully, and
> - the service fails to start in the postinst.
An int
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 03:49:48PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:39:36AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
> > Holger> I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm
> > Holger> tagging it moreinfo.
> > My reading
retitle -1 turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with failures
thanks
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:26:58AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The TC bug is 904558.
thank you very much for this pointer, that's a pretty good discussion,
which resulted in
-
So, the
The TC bug is 904558.
Busy with day job now.
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> I do agree with that. I'm more against a general
Holger> recommendation, depending on the circumstances, it's the
Holger> right thing to do.
My recollection is this came before the TC, but I'm blanking on the bug
number.
But it seems li
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:39:36AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
> Holger> I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm
> Holger> tagging it moreinfo.
> My reading of the TC and debian-devel discussion was that this was at
> least a reas
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
Holger> I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm
Holger> tagging it moreinfo.
My reading of the TC and debian-devel discussion was that this was at
least a reasonable thing for maintainers to do,
and whether it should be done dep
13 matches
Mail list logo
