[proftpd-dfsg] branch master updated (dc5027e -> 1e3bae5)

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:45:09PM +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> On 04.01.2018 16:47, Francesco Lovergine wrote:
> 
> Hi Francesco,
> 
> Happy new year!
> 

Thanks and cheers

> Do you plan to upload soon? I'm not sure when we can expect a patch for
> #839880.
> 
> Did you read my mail from 19th of December regarding clean up of package
> scripts? Are you able to answer my questions?
> 

Grunt, I just noticed that I'm not receiving the list messages since december
anymore for still unknown reasons. I'm just reading your messages from the alioth
archive now. The /etc/init.d issue has been managed independently by starting
the 4.1.3 migration. About the other questions:

> 1. We call "update-rc.d" w/ params "defaults 50". According to my test
> [1] the value 50 is default anyway so it can simply be dropped. Correct?

Indeed the int value argument is simply ignored, it is an heritage of 
the past (I think when the initscripts system was strictly serial) 
never catched. So, yes it has to be dropped. 

> 2. I don't understand that DONTSTART test. AFAICT the variable DONTSTART
> is set to 0 at the top of the script and then never touched again. So I
> can't imagine a situation where DONTSTART should have a different value
> than 0. So the test is surplus, correct?

I think that the whole thing (postinst and init) needs to be revised to be compliant 
with the new policy 9.3.3.1. Anyway, I'm afraid it is currently a non-sense
due to some past feature (debconf?) So, correct: it has to be revised.

>3. We test for the correctness proftp configuration before we start the
>init script. If we really need to do that (instead of simply start and
>eventually fail) I suggest to move it to the init script and simplify
>the postinst script.

Currently I have not a clear tought about that. I don't remember
if it is something introduced by me or not, but anyway the idea is communicating
ASAP the problems to admin without interrupting the service, but I'm not sure
if the service at that stage is *already* stopped in any case.

> Suggestions, critics? If not I'd implement the changes, two scripts can
> be simplified, proftpd-basic.prerm is surplus and will be removed.

Feel free to do that, I already can work about other things.

> What is the time line for 1.3.6 in our git repo? Could you migrate our
> repos to salsa?
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Hilmar

I would start with a separate 1.3.6 branch with substantial changes to
debian stuff, e.g. use of dh approach and auto stuff. 

I'll look into the salsa migration ASAP, with all required changes.

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine