[Christoph Anton Mitterer] > Ah... so update-rc.d (defaults) ignores LSB headers and always uses > S2345 und K016?
No. But it always report a warning if the arguments used when calling update-rc.d do not match the LSB header. When dependency based boot sequencing is used, the runlevels specified as arguments to update-rc.d are ignored, and the values in the LSB header are used instead. > Shouldn't one change this, to fully comply with insserv? Already working as it should. :) We are discussing a warning printed by update-rc.d when there is inconsistency between the update-rc.d command line arguments and the LSB header of a given script. We are not discussing the _behaviour_ of update-rc.d, which uses the LSB header when dependency based boot sequencing is enabled and the command line arguments when the legacy boot ordering is used. The warning is printed to increase the chance of keeping these two settings in sync. :) > So I guess the intended way to add new scripts is by using insserv? Dependenby based boot sequencing is the future for the init.d scripts in Debian, and currently this is done using insserv, yes. :) > btw: Is there (quick) a way to list all those scripts, which have > rc*.d links that differ from their LSB header defaults? Not that I remember. But the complete list of packages with such problem during installation is detected by piuparts, <URL: http://piuparts.debian.org/sid/initdscript_lsb_header_issue.html >. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
