You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To me, this reads as if the PIDFILE exists (and is not empty) AND if argument 1 of the script is any of the valid actions for the script then exit 1.
Am I reading that correctly? If so why would that initscript want to exit 1 when called with a valid action?
While this seems pretty basic to me, what's making me question my understanding here is that this logic seems to have been in place for 6 years now and it just seems unbelievable to me that such a fundamental aspect of the script could be broken for that long. So I feel I must be missing something, probably pretty obvious here.
Digging further, it seems that in bc299d0 the logic of the individual [ "${action}" != "…" ] && list was inverted but without inverting the the result of the entire group to maintain the overall logic as such:
Although, quite honestly, I find even that logic a bit awkward. Not sure why the state of the ${adb_pidfile} is even being included in that test. In any case the above change/fix does seem to fix the overall problem that /etc/init.d/adblock restart didn't do anything useful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm not sure I'm understanding the logic/intention of this line:
packages/net/adblock/files/adblock.init
Line 23 in d16b8ca
To me, this reads as if the PIDFILE exists (and is not empty) AND if argument 1 of the script is any of the valid actions for the script then
exit 1
.Am I reading that correctly? If so why would that initscript want to
exit 1
when called with a valid action?While this seems pretty basic to me, what's making me question my understanding here is that this logic seems to have been in place for 6 years now and it just seems unbelievable to me that such a fundamental aspect of the script could be broken for that long. So I feel I must be missing something, probably pretty obvious here.
Digging further, it seems that in bc299d0 the logic of the individual
[ "${action}" != "…" ] &&
list was inverted but without inverting the the result of the entire group to maintain the overall logic as such:Although, quite honestly, I find even that logic a bit awkward. Not sure why the state of the
${adb_pidfile}
is even being included in that test. In any case the above change/fix does seem to fix the overall problem that/etc/init.d/adblock restart
didn't do anything useful.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: