Petter Reinholdtsen <p...@hungry.com> writes:
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> Only when the scripts do have the right dependencies. And they not
>> always do.
>
> Of course. And buggy packages will give their users problems which
> hopefully will be reported and fixed by its maintainer.
>
>> For example chrony depends only on $local_fs instead of $remote_fs
>> and could be scheduled in parallel with sendsigs.
>
> I see #590888 is reported (thought its suggestion regarding networking
> should probably be changed to $network), so this seem to work.
>
>> People do get the depends wrong and it would be nice to have an
>> extra level of protection for sendsigs.
>
> This is another way to say that the boot system should hide bugs in
> packages, and I believe this to be a bad idea.
It should be easy to detect when dependencies would allow scripts to be
run in parallel with a specially flaged script, like sendsigs, and
report a warning/error automatically. If you have a flag for this.
I'm not saying the bug should be hidden. But hoping that someone notices
when it happens will not work. The occurance is random and the effect
might not even be visible to the user. In 99.99% the bad script might
finish before sendigs is run and in 0.01% it blows up.
>> The reason why I looked into this is that with ubuntus half
>> conversion to upstart sendsigs does run in parallel with other
>> scripts and happily kills them. And I wondered how well Debian is
>> protected from that.
>
> Right. Suspect we will have similar problems that need to be
> fixed. :)
>
> Happy hacking,
> --
> Petter Reinholdtsen
So far it looks good for the software I have installed. But that is just
a fraction of all software. Some automatic verification that sendsigs is
indeed nevere going to run in parallel with something else would be
nice.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
