Bernd Zeimetz <[email protected]> writes: > On 03/20/2012 10:49 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't agree. I'm happy to trade frequency of problems for more >> difficult debugging in the rare cases that problems still happen. > How can you be sure that such problems will happen less often? I apply basic principles of software design, the exact same ones that lead me to use standard libc functions instead of inventing my own wheels because, indeed, when one does that, problems will happen less often. I plan on relying on the fact that using common infrastructure means that lots of other people have been testing and debugging that infrastructure for you, which means that it's going to be considerably more robust and cope with more of the corner cases than that thing I wrote as a one-off to solve my immediate problem. I'm a bit surprised that I even have to say this, since to me this is obvious to the point of triviality. > What if a problem is not solvable by editing a config file? What happens when you have a problem with libc that isn't solvable by editing a config file? Or with any other package in Debian? Well, first you try to debug it using the tools available, and if you can't figure out what's going on, you file a bug. >> I also don't agree with this, for what it's worth. > Common init scripts are short enough to make them easy to debug. Speaking as someone who has debugged a *lot* of init scripts over the past 15+ years, I continue to disagree with this. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
