Debian Bug report logs - #802501
init script failures during postinst and related scripts

Full log

Message #50 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at control) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Jun 2019 15:11:21 +0000
From [email protected] Thu Jun 20 15:11:21 2019
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2018-09-13) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8,PGPSIGNATURE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,VALID_BTS_CONTROL
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 14; hammy, 147; neutral, 195; spammy,
	3. spammytokens:0.997-1--UD:T.C, 0.995-1--concluding, 0.987-1--TC
	hammytokens:0.000-+--H*ct:application, 0.000-+--H*ct:protocol,
	0.000-+--H*ct:micalg, 0.000-+--H*ct:signed, 0.000-+--H*ct:pgp-signature
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28])
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1hdyie-0005gF-JI; Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:11:20 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43])
	by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFC822280;
	Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:11:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
  by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:11:18 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spwhitton.name;
	 h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
	 s=fm3; bh=kC0XIB9CxaOEgXF9hr4g0uYAkYE9LkppVbNnwDn2M+I=; b=clo16
	wgGNNgU7WCJD95gWc1/X/Ta6owf7U1uK9p63CkSBJ2WHwxUN3NiTceDEgBPd6t5P
	i34XfcdfAoFt16XGJ/llAvsP9dfMJW4kRZoIYq3z7Fwm+VR9GN7yPuWe7fgn/J4s
	w1fmGkiFcz8s6DSDLGhQBNusQkrNp4uqcivQysuG998xjfkbUnfpcvcE1bKcfoRh
	R+tpGw7rEXnFQIrXMoXNlOADmOBt0dibhtMQXcC3PIpV0RAHq4wZ3/sOBiPfzJqJ
	ZMLq0Y0lqu5zQQ5UoD2QtDWXJgPY0nEqTvR9SX99d1pWpQ5TIqWJ3uDaaDu6f6Xh
	yv9qJQxoiDMgi/HWw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
	messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:message-id
	:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender
	:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=kC0XIB9CxaOEgXF9hr4g0uYAkYE9L
	kppVbNnwDn2M+I=; b=GABOf9k4vKu6KO3Mfk/Bn1UPP7oKWKsQl9gv5jxxoFwZ+
	IIGVVap7Slsuo5Zn2OoLmXLo/SmlZF8OVyrENojQ17Qxf7WRTZjn4InDznXjvMAa
	ireasRqcvjGA+gnXhgSS0oauhUmFKXCnz2uf4/ioWIYM0IJSvaOA/p5zNuQ1ELy9
	hAxRV1yzk0BykhjtJm8ovcimJwOM5syaaCZgJ4UCydp+5WbgXDd+wDZUWPwTjw3E
	tTZw8TSOMACRHgvc4JaX++TTTY8fYg+beg/0xs9DmkujRydopKErIXHg/JDuW05f
	4XjPnzlhMsGwCVh2hQoHwYpwPTTvx2d4VBD8I1ujA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:FaILXd-wqLxk4ek1AOHZWRG4e2ljoG0w3aBUCNs7fcRS1pFThyvbYw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrtdeggdekkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
    curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
    uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfggtgesghdtreertddttd
    enucfhrhhomhepufgvrghnucghhhhithhtohhnuceoshhpfihhihhtthhonhesshhpfihh
    ihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvqeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepshhpfihhihhtth
    honhesshhpfihhihhtthhonhdrnhgrmhgvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:FaILXQ3k2hpVCEEyfCnEeguWG3rvA56yCSB43yAN3WhjwWEUWm4JUw>
    <xmx:FaILXQDakJTEVcrnlCFUBsJo1CqmOse6rWFhR9H2-YklOT2njW7Z0Q>
    <xmx:FaILXRDljPc-sKhwR4Z5kUGTFcOVar4hKXiXO00ZcTcye1fP0FqZlg>
    <xmx:FqILXQpAMNKmJjuyjscGvgUxJ-4XyrR-L99mqTmNjhuPiTDpNU4jgg>
From: Sean Whitton <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Concluding "What should happen when maintscripts fail to restart a service?"
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:11:14 +0100
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Delivered-To: [email protected]

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 802501 + wontfix
user [email protected]
usertag 802501 = normative stalled
thanks

Hello,

In #904558 I asked the T.C. for advice about how to move #802501
forward.  Their ultimate response was to recommend that a working group
of developers come up with some method, other than exiting nonzero, for
a maintscript to indicate that it failed to restart services.  Let me
take this opportunity to thank all those who were involved in #904558.

In this message, I seek to explain my understanding of what the closing
of T.C. bug #904558 means for debian-policy bug #802501, and those
merged with it.  Apologies for the length.  I wanted this general sort
of reasoning to be recorded somewhere for reference in future
discussions.

~ ~ ~

When the Policy Changes Process fails to establish consensus, we have a
few options.  If we think that consensus hasn't been established only
because no-one has volunteered to come up with an adequately detailed
response to the problem uncovered by the filing and discussion of the
bug, and the bug has been open for a while with no evidence of anyone
working on it, we (the Policy Editors) will often just close the bug.
We don't want such things to stick around, clogging up the list of open
issues in a way that's demotivating.  This is the 'obsolete' usertag.

If we think that consensus hasn't been established because there are
good arguments on all sides, but we (the Policy Editors) additionally
think that argument to determine the very best solution is less
important right now than settling on one of the possible solutions
rather than remaining in further discussion, then we can refer the bug
to the T.C. to make a call between the competing options.  This was, I
think, the intended purpose of the 'ctte' usertag, but we haven't been
using it.

Finally, if we don't want to refer the bug to the T.C. -- generally
because it's not important enough -- but we think that closing the bug
would be counterproductive because someone else will just open a new bug
raising the same issue again at some near point in time, we can just
leave the bug open, as a kind of placeholder to hopefully reduce the
number of duplicate bugs filed.  I just added a 'stalled' usertag for
this case.

The 'obsolete', 'ctte' and 'stalled' usertags are meant to be used in
addition to the 'wontfix' tag.

~ ~ ~

In #904558, I did not ask the T.C. to rule on what maintscripts should
do when they fail to restart a service.  Rather, I asked them to weigh
in on the decision between the options described above, given that the
Policy Changes Process had failed to achieve consensus.  However, in the
message closing #904558, the T.C. indicated that they declined to issue
a ruling about what maintscripts should do when they fail to restart a
service.  So the second option described above, corresponding to the
'ctte' usertag, has been taken off the table.

That leaves us with the question of whether to leave #802501 open, in
the absence of the possibility of closing it by having the T.C. make a
call.  Given that this bug has already been filed (at least) twice, I
think it would be best for us to leave it open.  So I'm tagging
wontfix+stalled.

~ ~ ~

In filing #904558, I made an alternative suggestion to the above:

> As a Policy delegate I want to move this issue along, and I can see
> three ways of doing that:
>
> 1. write a patch to explicitly state in Policy that what happens when a
>    service (re)start fails in a maintscript is left up to package
>    maintainer discretion, and close the bugs
> [...]

I no longer think this would be useful enough to have in Policy, but I'd
like to hear from anyone who disagrees.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.