Hi Toni, On Montag, 31. August 2009, Toni Mueller wrote: > > retitle 543944 don't claim munin-node has been started if it hasn't > > severity 543944 minor > I find this an inappropriate.
(Sorry, but) you didnt understand my mail:
> I don't really care whether munin-mode is
> started during the installation (it currently is, during 'softinst').
Then you are using FAI's softupdate functionality and not FAI installation.
During installation munin-node is not started, during softupdate it is
restarted. (Unless you configured softupdate differently then the default
is.)
> The problem is that I couldn't easily work around the fallout it
> creates, namely, causing the 'softinst' task, and thus the whole FAI
> installation, to fail. Imho, munin-node should only start when the
> machine is successfully rebootet *after* FAI had its turn.
As said in my mail this already has been reported as 539886.
So AFAICS I had three (sensible) options to process your bug report:
- merge 543944 with 539886 and ignore the 2nd aspect of your bugreport, that
munin-node's postinst also claims to have (re)started munin-node when it
hasn't.
- clone 539886 and merge 543944 with 539886 and make the clone of 539886 deal
with the aspect of your bugreport, that munin-node's postinst also claims to
have (re)started munin-node when it hasn't.
- what I have done: retitle 539886 to deal with the wrong claim, as 543944
already deals with the plugin configuration problem (=the issue you care
about).
Option 1 seemed wrong to me, and option 2 seemed like unneccessary noise.
A good way of preventing noise is checking the BTS before submitting bugs and
submitting one bug per issue.
> The bug #539886 looks like being applicable, too, but doesn't note the
> consequences for an FAI based installation.
The consequences are the same, munin-node isnt configured properly (in certain
cases). I fail to see what FAI has to do with this. (And I'm a FAI
developer.)
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
