[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#451269: Bug#451269: samba's package postinst script shouldn't return an error if samba daemon can't be started

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Mathias,

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:44:50PM -0500, Mathias Gug wrote:
> Package: samba 
> Version: 3.0.26a-1
> Tags: patch
> User: ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Usertags: origin-ubuntu ubuntu-patch hardy

> If the samba configuration is broken, the postinst script fails. I've attached
> a patch that add true as the error-handler when restarting samba.

> First reported in Ubuntu:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/85194

> diff -pruN 3.0.26a-1/debian/rules 3.0.26a-1ubuntu2/debian/rules
> --- 3.0.26a-1/debian/rules	2007-10-04 09:08:53.000000000 +0100
> +++ 3.0.26a-1ubuntu2/debian/rules	2007-10-04 09:08:11.000000000 +0100
> @@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ binary-arch: build install
>  	dh_installexamples
>  	dh_installlogrotate
>  	dh_installlogcheck
> -	DH_OPTIONS= dh_installinit -psamba -- "defaults 20 19"
> +	DH_OPTIONS= dh_installinit -psamba --error-handler=true -- "defaults 20 19"
>  	DH_OPTIONS= dh_installinit -pwinbind
>  	dh_installcron 
>  	for pkg in samba smbfs winbind; do \

This doesn't look like correct behavior to me.  Conceptually, I don't
believe that packages should declare themselves to be "configured" when
their config is left in a detectably broken state; I think this should be
handled through the packaging system itself rather than having the packaging
system declare the package "ok" and leave the admin to detect the problem
out of band.

Yes, it can be a problem for apt when packages fail to configure; but why is
the samba package's configuration broken in the first place?

The argument given in the Ubuntu bug report, that "we are not following the
packaging policy when the postinst assumes that we should have a correct
config file from another package", is false; samba and samba-common are
cooperating packages, and one of the main purposes of the samba-common
package is to manage the smb.conf file on behalf of samba.  But of course
samba-common doesn't contain enough information to ascertain for itself that
the config on disk is usable by smbd, so it's up to the samba package to
complain when this is not the case.

Do you disagree with this position?

I would in any case be interested to know for sure why the original bug
submitter had an smbd that wouldn't start; the follow-up from Mantas is
fairly speculative about the cause of the failure, it's entirely possible
that this change has only papered over whatever the original submitter's
problem was.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/