On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:03:27PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Mark Brown]
> > FWIW since I actually had to think about it now I'm going to declare the > > individual daemons, not a virtual nis service since those are more > > sane things to depend on and it'll provide better future proofing. > Be careful with this, as two scripts providing the same thing will > make the second script fail to install when dependency based boot > sequencing is enabled. But I would very much welcome a split, with Oh, actually - could you expand on "fail to install" here? I'm guessing failure occur at the update-rc.d stage or similar? -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
