Devuan bug report logs - #884
/etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2: Questionable use of invoke-rc.d

Package: init-system-helpers; Reported by: Opty <[email protected]>; Keywords: moreinfo debian; merged with #881, #882, #883; Done: Mark Hindley <[email protected]>; Maintainer for init-system-helpers is Devuan Dev Team <[email protected]>.

Message received at [email protected]:

Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=193.36.131.86; helo=mx.hindley.org.uk; [email protected]; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 09:37:14 +0100
From: Mark Hindley <[email protected]>
To: Opty <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: bug#881: invoke-rc.d: Policy layer may override runlevel
 constraint
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <CAERDJOGBvwgsTJ7rL-MaUqLmBk7kBd12rtuAj1hDQt0-U9Ktug@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
 <CAERDJOG_4mnRRA7oFvcbMFoiZitExizd=jR=HqyL9dT15ORFyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
 <CAERDJOGezboa6AzE9oJt-JKPtqEiE97fJ8DPapPmCxQhjCBTJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
 <CAERDJOG2SLOG-=ouK4QwDc_-d4CQz=Maf1yRO9-1ioBvYhuWBw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAERDJOG2SLOG-=ouK4QwDc_-d4CQz=Maf1yRO9-1ioBvYhuWBw@mail.gmail.com>

Opty,

Thanks,

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 01:16:40PM +0200, Opty wrote:
> > That isn't conventional Debian practice.
> 
> I could continue using the policy layer unmodified, selectively allow
> what I need (extra work) and keep denied the rest
> 
> -or-
> 
> modify invoke-rc.d or rather policy-rc.d to check
> $DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_NAME (to detect preinst, postinst, prerm or postrm
> script), crosscheck $DPKG_MAINTSCRIPT_PACKAGE vs. $INITSCRIPTID
> (substring of each other) to allow calling other scripts and
> eventually do nothing, maybe ask the administrator.
> 
> Both seem unintentional error- or side-effect-prone.
> 
> I could also just modify invoke-rc.d to skip the querypolicy call in
> case of K link.

I find it hard to see an actionable bug here. I think invoke-rc.d and
policy-rcd-declarative* are behaving as advertised. Your requirements appear
different to what policy-rcd-declarative-deny-all provides. So, as Simon
suggested, you need to write your own policy script to meet your requirements.

Therefore I will close this.

If you think I have missed something, please feel free to reopen.

Thanks

Mark

Merged 881 882 883 884 Request was from mark <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text available.

Added tag(s) moreinfo. Request was from mark <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text available.

Marked as found in versions init-system-helpers/1.65.2devuan1. Request was from mark <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text available.

No longer marked as found in versions 2.0.8-1. Request was from mark <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text available.

bug reassigned from package 'ulogd2' to 'init-system-helpers'. Request was from mark <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text available.

Message received at [email protected]:

Received: (at 884) by bugs.devuan.org; 2 Apr 2025 16:12:04 +0000
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from email.devuan.org [2a01:4f9:fff1:13::5fd9:f9e4]
	by doc.devuan.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.4.16)
	for <debbugs@localhost> (single-drop); Wed, 02 Apr 2025 16:12:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from email.devuan.org
	by email.devuan.org with LMTP
	id aHUfG5Nh7WeaJAAAmSBk0A
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	for <[email protected]>; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 16:10:59 +0000
Received: by email.devuan.org (Postfix, from userid 109)
	id 3279B395; Wed,  2 Apr 2025 16:10:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on email.devuan.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_PASS,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=193.36.131.86; helo=mx.hindley.org.uk; [email protected]; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mx.hindley.org.uk (193-36-131-86.cfwn.uk [193.36.131.86])
	by email.devuan.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E6081;
	Wed,  2 Apr 2025 16:10:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hindley.org.uk (apollo.hindleynet [192.168.1.3])
	by mx.hindley.org.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id CD4E9EF;
	Wed,  2 Apr 2025 17:10:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 2858 invoked by uid 1000);
	Wed, 02 Apr 2025 16:10:57 -0000
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:10:57 +0100
From: Mark Hindley <[email protected]>
To: Opty <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Merge bugs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <CAERDJOGPwrRp+GZuUNPPT93++x6Md+uhN+bsNu-V9cBJ1oq-Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
 <CAERDJOFJ7CDBvBdUYtnZQwvdwX6MoctR1J9rjV0NHRua5seSuA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAERDJOFJ7CDBvBdUYtnZQwvdwX6MoctR1J9rjV0NHRua5seSuA@mail.gmail.com>

Control: forcemerge 881 -1

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:58:20PM +0200, Opty wrote:
> Please see #881 or should I copy the story here as well?

No. Really these are all the same issue. I will merge them for now while we look
at the detail.

Mark

Acknowledgement sent to Mark Hindley <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to [email protected]. Full text available.

Information forwarded to [email protected], [email protected]:
bug#884; Package ulogd2. Full text available.

Message received at [email protected]:

Received: (at 884) by bugs.devuan.org; 2 Apr 2025 12:01:32 +0000
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from email.devuan.org [2a01:4f9:fff1:13::5fd9:f9e4]
	by doc.devuan.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.4.16)
	for <debbugs@localhost> (single-drop); Wed, 02 Apr 2025 12:01:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from email.devuan.org
	by email.devuan.org with LMTP
	id OOsjDvEm7WceGAAAmSBk0A
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	for <[email protected]>; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 12:00:49 +0000
Received: by email.devuan.org (Postfix, from userid 109)
	id 222F2642; Wed,  2 Apr 2025 12:00:49 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: email.devuan.org;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com [email protected] header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=Qn7ojV7T;
	dkim-atps=neutral
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on email.devuan.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c; helo=mail-ot1-x32c.google.com; [email protected]; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c])
	by email.devuan.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEFF5173
	for <[email protected]>; Wed,  2 Apr 2025 12:00:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-7231e216a06so827899a34.2
        for <[email protected]>; Wed, 02 Apr 2025 05:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1743595246; x=1744200046; darn=bugs.devuan.org;
        h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date
         :message-id:reply-to;
        bh=cR/kc9VxtMo9wbVojGZBA9NhuWytLRi9P1rpDPTW9qY=;
        b=Qn7ojV7TCGqpd3U9UAHOHAZF+5quBFr7KiYi8Y92fpHJlrvyaKId/onFW/42o4zkez
         hAr/u/4dj6EC38LrFg+ef0KwGITso17ASyLUPsiOimN/0m2djVjXKiMZsOl3Yc5mIWm1
         1tI0Wpihc3MgiDon0YEYLUD2nPLNt9+L14V7leMZyUoCmYNfX0zJbFar733NbwykBFwY
         WUm0yPBSMg3QOoH5lcQ+p4JFZzuuf1M674vI/Pqqn1rnxtjwkCUMoFe52BIlAvQXZ52s
         P8MaJuLs8Rne98bkOfVgBWTK0+VrDergNkj5L5zTiNQMjFoGXwcRdrPvKUdQh+6aKLVr
         OTvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1743595246; x=1744200046;
        h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
         :subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=cR/kc9VxtMo9wbVojGZBA9NhuWytLRi9P1rpDPTW9qY=;
        b=qs22tNh4yILeMKhxJNd9y8El+W875rQB3lZ2p5HxhM94FCZG9DG4yEmWSkxDBFlPrr
         2LsSPL/HACU7PAtU9GMq5eD/FuG0ZyRzF+6oji9vO/0m4f7YwZkoDAWzkCvEI9TORzZi
         tWqsNMqBan6NSOIuCELDbBZtgN/Aueobm9yyltP2bp/Z1dVIFj3M8jDFS02q7ULYz9nl
         qttpCg/dcODtAQ3X3+gqAoflNaOX9hovj5hXcP5+Koy9CPyXjBcP6FlWTPQKhJn+Tbv7
         AsTW+2jkdWuzoL1wwOqByzbK5Y/pE8TU4Gm0O1e63ogDbe+zCzUkkJAn8VyzgkmATtXf
         ZYyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxXJrdzIUCHEd2bspu4CpCTWLe5EyRCI2rmXjJSQXRp22MsCYDT
	1t9CJs3kDoHEjgoBWcR7B7z0CExQ6oe+Ww/Qx9S+5UW5g7auobDO1lMJqUIK/JIcq8GRwosRgRq
	u7++ceUy1ii0CoQhw1qEQCvgWOJj36TLeAdM=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncstQ0Ou/EvqsrRsWDg5SvBv8r/wLJBlymGZpOktO459gHmGHeuyn4PY+aQFgCO
	SC24STw+hDPR6/z7RBfwLKGXdrN8qH72pWETAgYaieHiqTlBA6Z6hmGTH6IAmiDr79HfsBqDBFt
	/6JaiRRdVwhqKX3zT79TRNTBoSc+VmQi5qdQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHX0gKChGkD8ZI1wowqhNc2Cq+USstZ/pmcWM92ROGSG1t4GsfgPa4LkCMlN+CNVj0HfTPS/brFxR3x6Nld0PU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:a082:b0:29e:723c:8e9d with SMTP id
 586e51a60fabf-2cc3b6c85e5mr1141775fac.4.1743595246110; Wed, 02 Apr 2025
 05:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAERDJOGtf3XB+nLODWsNRBYxsYeWkvupTssK-_w=DrdUS08cXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
From: Opty <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:00:35 +0200
X-Gm-Features: AQ5f1JpR6o2ue7JZ_y5_gbYw-7Lpg8HmHdzrEobqw6NJATF6iE7iEWYtP5Sz9lE
Message-ID: <CAERDJOGrYXVqAv4jd6E+P_D5x7cY8hx6CEWfxyp0QhCApzpNhw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#884: /etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2: Questionable use of invoke-rc.d
To: Mark Hindley <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 6:44=E2=80=AFPM Mark Hindley <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> Possibly, but I am not sure. Certainly all the other /etc/logrotate.d exa=
mples I
> can find use invoke-rc.d. It may be to prevent rotation in chroots and th=
e like
> when it would fail. Also, if you have prevented services from starting in=
t he
> first place, there is no need to rotate the logs later. Why do you have
> policy-rcd-declarative-deny-all installed? What is your intention in doin=
g that?

Please see #881 or should I copy the story here as well?

> However, I am sure that ulogd2 isn't forked in Devuan and so this should =
be
> reported directly to Debian's BTS if you really think there is an issue.

Now that Debian uses systemd by default I considered Devuan a better
place for System V style init stuff but I will think about reporting
to Debian BTS then.

Regards,
Opty

Acknowledgement sent to Opty <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to [email protected]. Full text available.

Information forwarded to [email protected], [email protected]:
bug#884; Package ulogd2. Full text available.

Added tag(s) debian. Request was from Mark Hindley <[email protected]> to [email protected]. Full text available.

Message received at [email protected]:

Received: (at 884) by bugs.devuan.org; 1 Apr 2025 16:45:19 +0000
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from email.devuan.org [2a01:4f9:fff1:13::5fd9:f9e4]
	by doc.devuan.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.4.16)
	for <debbugs@localhost> (single-drop); Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from email.devuan.org
	by email.devuan.org with LMTP
	id QODVJ/kX7Ge7RwAAmSBk0A
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	for <[email protected]>; Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:44:41 +0000
Received: by email.devuan.org (Postfix, from userid 109)
	id 6F01F5A0; Tue,  1 Apr 2025 16:44:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on email.devuan.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_PASS,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=193.36.131.86; helo=mx.hindley.org.uk; [email protected]; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mx.hindley.org.uk (193-36-131-86.cfwn.uk [193.36.131.86])
	by email.devuan.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB043AD
	for <[email protected]>; Tue,  1 Apr 2025 16:44:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hindley.org.uk (apollo.hindleynet [192.168.1.3])
	by mx.hindley.org.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id 10C74130;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2025 17:44:40 +0100 (BST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 13881 invoked by uid 1000);
	Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:44:39 -0000
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 17:44:39 +0100
From: Mark Hindley <[email protected]>
To: Opty <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: bug#884: /etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2: Questionable use of invoke-rc.d
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <CAERDJOGtf3XB+nLODWsNRBYxsYeWkvupTssK-_w=DrdUS08cXQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAERDJOGtf3XB+nLODWsNRBYxsYeWkvupTssK-_w=DrdUS08cXQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Debbugs-No-Ack: No Thanks

Control: tags -1 debian

Opty,

On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 02:47:49PM +0200, Opty wrote:
> Package: ulogd2
> Version: 2.0.8-1
> 
> /etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2 uses invoke-rc.d to notify ulogd2 to reopen
> logs but it doesn't work when using policy-rcd-declarative-deny-all so
> shouldn't the logrotate configuration snippet use rather 'service' ?

Possibly, but I am not sure. Certainly all the other /etc/logrotate.d examples I
can find use invoke-rc.d. It may be to prevent rotation in chroots and the like
when it would fail. Also, if you have prevented services from starting int he
first place, there is no need to rotate the logs later. Why do you have
policy-rcd-declarative-deny-all installed? What is your intention in doing that?
                                                                                                                                                           
However, I am sure that ulogd2 isn't forked in Devuan and so this should be
reported directly to Debian's BTS if you really think there is an issue.

Mark

Information forwarded to [email protected], [email protected]:
bug#884; Package ulogd2. Full text available.

Message received at [email protected]:

Received: (at submit) by bugs.devuan.org; 1 Apr 2025 12:48:45 +0000
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: from email.devuan.org [2a01:4f9:fff1:13::5fd9:f9e4]
	by doc.devuan.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.4.16)
	for <debbugs@localhost> (single-drop); Tue, 01 Apr 2025 12:48:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from email.devuan.org
	by email.devuan.org with LMTP
	id zh68C4Pg62eLJgAAmSBk0A
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	for <[email protected]>; Tue, 01 Apr 2025 12:48:03 +0000
Received: by email.devuan.org (Postfix, from userid 109)
	id 16AE65A0; Tue,  1 Apr 2025 12:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: email.devuan.org;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com [email protected] header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=Dj/cLWWb;
	dkim-atps=neutral
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on email.devuan.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d; helo=mail-oi1-x22d.google.com; [email protected]; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d])
	by email.devuan.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4511A3AD
	for <[email protected]>; Tue,  1 Apr 2025 12:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3fe84963e5fso168819b6e.1
        for <[email protected]>; Tue, 01 Apr 2025 05:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1743511680; x=1744116480; darn=bugs.devuan.org;
        h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject
         :date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=PbDf6y8dLpRPMhFrDNnzGS9ng7N3kSxBWSXYHz/1xYI=;
        b=Dj/cLWWb6OfGD2G90hazdTrUfqFIilpiJDFr+4QM/bkbWxMRVaqfMEGalmZyZg9Rg1
         N7qr+9pMdiOFOUl0KS2w10RLuDbQX5nOXdrFMx47Pj3ml1kh3V8V7CX/QYqp/yCcPa2m
         uQPWSACtFG4bc4ISQUgFxRcBYIr1oTAHg9/AibCAVn4eescM3MT7fKLnwMFTWrco+XtJ
         ZzX09iKiryK/kxO2gnh318jzCcJrW+unqNnE4hamzDH/+m2GIm0iPdOrSipChhX8cGj1
         EgbYpNX/57WpvZoIucrVK/3orJIAPHNAtlbKAE8sS6IWjCUc4MJ3QdWegt6w+xPpN35j
         +pfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1743511680; x=1744116480;
        h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state
         :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=PbDf6y8dLpRPMhFrDNnzGS9ng7N3kSxBWSXYHz/1xYI=;
        b=DwKeYS9nlbtBe7JYZyVyuK1cU+rWbDWtuxOt5bp4lZzfMdxamnM7YDomczDH3wSGju
         Jk0nNXYU0LJgEB0KT7qqlSNdyq5YZ5FaO1jSzNcYB1lmEatbHALjHmjd942lJIg8+CfG
         qzb+IFNuQV9yXC8V4SvqGD0hrTuJm5b+In0PzYPEWD+fIo7fYbXhnIqtZctpmObxNjAU
         21Rd1fI25D7HwdL0TmRIJN/LwrvwUUKqDkZtWoCw/ICFHPwow2eZjVQM0pVBANTXKhbh
         or4TOCQGhtgfFalNg5Tk0lfriZIGToVpTo3qTfK1oquY+KXxR7gAMX4kB3S7D9iHVTx5
         P4mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyjDa+F0tn7yFsxp5+EdkymbYAIuSQ9KcmtBoF8nkPy95gzm7RE
	AAHgcIzZvdNe3FRquQn4E88FcbM6+2IfNQEplBkqFWMp/+lmTWxPncxcMTB1GYODiDAdpr7N3b8
	n9zJgJzvQ2ozxIOTbo8AQejfKcX8u9u6D
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsG0chevvsh+SxLkU+E3jbZMiChxYfPvhzDGM06LHl4G0ZE0WOkGsE9FtphMHf
	wPT+gMqnPoDsghK6RzmKxsTvmtZIRzVywCNzWssxHzMEjNj6QGv4b1FO3BCKqqMlSaiTjrmGytV
	dBPbPKfhf9xXXGhYfysFXI0451ffvOTnjLISSYUyMJtN2r
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEkd0jBeIjNkWpw7tXRMEZNioTjcIvwQEPG9ebtvbgvv/E8mNS3SO172QozFBH9xOL6FgKXlUSnKtdfTJZ37VY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1451:b0:3fe:aedb:4be7 with SMTP id
 5614622812f47-3ff0f5db213mr3007943b6e.7.1743511680626; Tue, 01 Apr 2025
 05:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Opty <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:47:49 +0200
X-Gm-Features: AQ5f1Jq-29E-JBZmqBwvPPkGdVl9lhZSDfFuYzOjBEk2nu4WpKdGQnN6H3sgKuA
Message-ID: <CAERDJOGtf3XB+nLODWsNRBYxsYeWkvupTssK-_w=DrdUS08cXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: /etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2: Questionable use of invoke-rc.d
To: [email protected]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Package: ulogd2
Version: 2.0.8-1

/etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2 uses invoke-rc.d to notify ulogd2 to reopen
logs but it doesn't work when using policy-rcd-declarative-deny-all so
shouldn't the logrotate configuration snippet use rather 'service' ?

Regards,
Opty

Acknowledgement sent to Opty <[email protected]>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to [email protected]. Full text available.

Report forwarded to [email protected], [email protected]:
bug#884; Package ulogd2. Full text available.

Devuan bug report logs - #884 /etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2: Questionable use of invoke-rc.d

Message received at [email protected]:

Message received at [email protected]:

Message received at [email protected]:

Message received at [email protected]:

Message received at [email protected]:

Devuan bug report logs - #884
/etc/logrotate.d/ulogd2: Questionable use of invoke-rc.d