[Riku Voipio] > OTOH, It does not break any existing behaviour, so IMHO > documentation and file-rc (the only other package providing > invoke-rc.d) can be updated later.
The documentation is pretty clear about the location of policy-rc.d: POLICY-RC.D Policy layer (/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d) interface: ============================================================= Most Debian systems will not have this script as the need for a policy layer is not very common. Most people using chroot jails just need an one-line script which returns an exit status of 101 as the jailed /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d script. The /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d file *must* be managed through the alternatives system (/usr/sbin/update-alternatives) by any packages providing it. /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d [options] <initscript ID> <actions> [<runlevel>] /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d [options] --list <initscript ID> [<runlevel> ...] This make me believe that if update-rc.d is changed to allow other locations, the documentation need to change a the same time. [Lars Wirzenius 2006-06-24] > This means that a sysadmin who wants to write a policy layer has to > put it into /usr/sbin, instead of /usr/local/sbin. This seems > suboptimal. [Riku Voipio 2006-12-28] > The reason of submitting this that we need it here now, and I'd hate > to find out I need to reapply this change every time sysvinit gets > updated. These two comments are the only claims I find in the BTS report that this change is _needed_, and neither explain why. Can any of you explain why it is needed? Why can't the sysadmin make a package with his own /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d? I'm not against the change, but believe the specification need to change and for that it would be useful to have a clear rationale. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
