On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 03:52:00AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Steve Langasek] > > So it's not at all true that it's "not an option" in Debian - it > > just happens to not be the option you prefer. I, OTOH, think it's > > the better option;
> Just for the record, I would prefer Debian to drop file-rc, and avoid > the complexity of having two different systems manipulated by the > update-rc.d API. It would make a lot of things easier, both with > documentation and configuration. But until it is dropped, I believe > it would be a mistake to pretend file-rc does not exist and do things > in packages that only work with one of them. The problem is that the alternative solution that's been implemented works correctly with *none* of them. > > And insserv doesn't even enter the argument here, because insserv is > > dependency-based and shouldn't need any configuration changes > > anyway... > Actually, disabling services when using insserv have the same problem. > All changes need to go through the update-rc.d API, and there is no > way to enable or disable single runlevels. The sequence number can be > ignored in the insserv case, but not the state of the service in each > runlevel. Well, so the current solution breaks all of file-rc, sysv-rc, and insserv; is unnecessary for insserv (because the sequence numbers don't need to be reset for a dependency-based init system); and there's another way to handle sysv-rc. I really don't see how this is a superior solution. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
