[2019-02-26 20:56] Felipe Sateler
> Sorry for the delayed answer
No problem. Better late then never.
> [ patch suggestions ]
Fixed.
> This only works if invoking the init scripts directly. systemctl will hide
> the exit status of the init script (the default behavior of systemd is to
> accep
I might be missing something obvious here, but why is the service
started after installation if it's not configured?
And if the package insist on this behaviour, why does it not use the
existing dh_installinit --error-handler mechanism to explicitly define
the behaviour it wants?
I'm not convince
Hi,
Sorry for the delayed answer
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 4:36 PM Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> [2019-01-16 06:32] Niels Thykier
> > Felipe Sateler:
> > > Bringing in the debhelper maintainers into the loop again.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >> Should an init script be executed, invoke-rc.d always returns
[2019-01-16 06:32] Niels Thykier
> Felipe Sateler:
> > Bringing in the debhelper maintainers into the loop again.
> >
> > [...]
> >> Should an init script be executed, invoke-rc.d always returns the status
> > code returned by the init script.
> >
> > So it looks like this would be quite the ch
Felipe Sateler:
> Bringing in the debhelper maintainers into the loop again.
>
> [...]
>> Should an init script be executed, invoke-rc.d always returns the status
> code returned by the init script.
>
> So it looks like this would be quite the change in behavior.
>
> I wonder what the best appr
Bringing in the debhelper maintainers into the loop again.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 10:31 AM Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> [ Do you want me to re-submit this patch as merge request? ]
>
Not necessary (yet)
>
> [2019-01-11 14:58] Felipe Sateler
> > > [2011-06-14 11:39] Joey Hess
> > > >
> > > > p
[ Do you want me to re-submit this patch as merge request? ]
[2019-01-11 14:58] Felipe Sateler
> > [2011-06-14 11:39] Joey Hess
> > >
> > > part 1 text/plain 618
> > > Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > > A failure from the update-rc.d cannot make postinst fail, because the
> > > >
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 9:39 AM Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> control: tags -1 +patch
>
Please submit patches as MRs in salsa, it makes for easier review.
>
>
> [2011-06-14 11:39] Joey Hess
> >
> > part 1 text/plain 618
> > Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > A failure from the up
control: tags -1 +patch
[2011-06-14 11:39] Joey Hess
>
> part 1 text/plain 618
> Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > A failure from the update-rc.d cannot make postinst fail, because the
> > exit code is not checked.
>
> Yes it is (set -x), but I meant invoke-rc.d anyway, obviously.
Helmut Grohne wrote:
> A failure from the update-rc.d cannot make postinst fail, because the
> exit code is not checked.
Yes it is (set -x), but I meant invoke-rc.d anyway, obviously.
> So in my view the reason for a postinst failure is unrelated to
> update-rc.d. Can you explain your reasoning?
Hi Joey,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:14:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > In any case it would not hurt if debhelper would support the LSB exit
> > codes. This could be done for instance by treating various exit codes as
> > if they were 0.
>
> debhelper generates a postinst
Helmut Grohne wrote:
> In any case it would not hurt if debhelper would support the LSB exit
> codes. This could be done for instance by treating various exit codes as
> if they were 0.
debhelper generates a postinst that runs update-rc.d. Reassigning.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description:
Package: debhelper
Version: 8.0.0
Severity: wishlist
LSB has some definitions about exit[1] codes for init scripts.
Note that the policy currently has a different view about exit status 5,
but there have been ideas to change that[2].
In any case it would not hurt if debhelper would support the L
13 matches
Mail list logo
