Kel Modderman wrote: > On Thursday 09 October 2008 21:52:47 Martin Pitt wrote: >>> if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt "0.5.11-5"; then >> This must be "lt-nl". >> >>> update-rc.d -f hal remove >>> fi >> That's too blunt. It should at most rm -f the rc{0,6}.d symlinks >> instead of completely stomping over any customizations the admin might >> have done. > > Hey Martin, > > I just noticed acpid applied a similar patch (#495544) which was a product of > the TearDown work, and it also didn't handle the upgrade path (#502613, CC'd). > > What's the best way to proceed here to get these TearDown patches to make > change on upgrade too before too many patches get applied in Debian that do > not take care of it? > > I didn't get a reply from my last mail to Michael about how hal package plans > to fix it, is the current best method to do a: > > if dpkg --compare-versions "$installed" lt-nl "$version"; then > rm -f /etc/rc[06].d/K??$script > fi > > ?
This would work for insserv and sysv-rc, but not file-rc (but I don't care too much about file-rc, tbh. And the popcon stats of file-rc do not justify any special treatment of file-rc imho). It also doesn't take into account any local modifications to the stop priorities (when using sysv-rc alone). We are thus not 100% policy compliant, but I think we can ignore that in that special case. The major complain I got on debian-release (when we discussed the same topic for avahi-daemon) was, that the "update-rc.d remove" approach didn't preserve disabled services, which the above method would do (i.e. services which were disabled before the upgrade were enabled again afterwards). So in summary, I think the suggested method above would indeed be the best we can do atm. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature