Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
I did hit the same issue at work - autofs worked fine as I just installed the packages, then broke at soon as I rebooted. Yuck! As noted earlier the main issue is that nis and autofs are both at priority 19 currently. Seems like we should at least start by moving nis to priority 18, since that will be required either way. Moving portmap to priority 17 seems like a good thing too but I would not mind as stongly about it getting done for etch or not. In my installation I just moved portmap to 17 and nis to 18 and got things working. This is what seemed the most natural fix to me (before I found out about this bug and even heard about portmap being started in rcS). Either way, I hope etch will at least move nis to priority 18. Thanks, -- Michel Walken Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:20AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: I may be missing something, but why does it need to be moved? It starts in rcS as well as rc2, so this should only ever be an issue in the rare The more noticable issue is the collision between nis and autofs. Both run at level 19, neither runs in rcS.d and autofs is frequently used with NIS maps so wants NIS to be started before it. It's this that drives moving portmap. cases when you have to switch to runlevel 1 and back, right? This seems like a rare enough occurence I'm not sure it's worth worrying about too much, but I may be missing something here. I worry that while this is a rarely used feature the people who use NIS are more likely than most to be among those who do so. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
This one time, at band camp, Mark Brown said: On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:20AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: I may be missing something, but why does it need to be moved? It starts in rcS as well as rc2, so this should only ever be an issue in the rare The more noticable issue is the collision between nis and autofs. Both run at level 19, neither runs in rcS.d and autofs is frequently used with NIS maps so wants NIS to be started before it. It's this that drives moving portmap. OK, I understood this as solely a portmap issue, so that clarifies for me. cases when you have to switch to runlevel 1 and back, right? This seems like a rare enough occurence I'm not sure it's worth worrying about too much, but I may be missing something here. I worry that while this is a rarely used feature the people who use NIS are more likely than most to be among those who do so. Yes, I suppose this is probably true. My memories of NIS do involve some single user mode work :) -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 01:28:46PM +1100, An?bal Monsalve Salazar wrote: On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:27:35AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: block 341140 by 400952 thankyou Hi Anibal and Javier, I (as the new maintainer of autofs) would like to have the issue settled before Etch is released... what consequences do you fear could arise from moving the script? That's something we don't know. So, that's something we don't want to do, certainly not at this stage of the release cycle. The present situation forces all users of nisautofs to manually shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common setup... Moving autofs to start later (i.e. at 20) is probably unwise (as explained earlier), although this seems to be what most users currently do as a workaround. Maybe we should talk with the release team to get this in? If the release team approves that change we'll change portmap to start at S17 as already suggested by Javier, see #400952 [0]. What's wrong with Steinar's suggestion to change the name of the autofs script to be something between 19nis and 20apache? Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 06:28:01PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: What's wrong with Steinar's suggestion to change the name of the autofs script to be something between 19nis and 20apache? It's gross but it should work. At this late stage in the release cycle it looks like the best option. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
Hi Luk,
So, that's something we don't want to do, certainly not at this stage of
the release cycle.
What's wrong with Steinar's suggestion to change the name of the autofs
script to be something between 19nis and 20apache?
conclusion first: If that's the ultimate response of the release team, I'll
accept it.
But IMO this solution is an ugly hack and highly counterintuitive - init
scripts are config files after all, and if I wanted to adapt a package's
initscript to my needs, I'd expect to find it at /etc/init.d/${package},
not /etc/init.d/zz${package} or the like.
Here's a small analysis to support my cause, done on yesterday's i386 Sid.
This is only the result, the log can be found here[1].
* There are currently 16 packages that relate in any way to the portmap
package (including even Recommends and Suggests, and passing over main,
contrib and non-free (the latter two containing none)).
* Of these, 12 provide an initscript.
* 11 of these 12 install theirs with a priority at or above 20, the only
exception being nis at 19; none of these will be affected by the proposed
change.
Add to that the fact that we are moving the portmap script to a lower value,
so the only type of problem could be services that conflict with the portmap
daemon starting earlier... OTOH the portmapper is usually already started in
rcS, so any conflicts of this kind should have surfaced years ago.
I can understand your reluctance to accept such a change at this time, but I
think it is unjustified in this case. Hacking around the alphabetical order
of init scripts by arbitrary renaming seems like the Wrong Thing[tm] to
me... and I can see no danger at all of causing RC (or any other) bugs. I'll
prepare an upload nonetheless, in case you insist.
Regards,
Jan
[1] http://www-pool.math.tu-berlin.de/~hesso/portmap_relations.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:17:18AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote:
But IMO this solution is an ugly hack and highly counterintuitive - init
scripts are config files after all, and if I wanted to adapt a package's
initscript to my needs, I'd expect to find it at /etc/init.d/${package},
not /etc/init.d/zz${package} or the like.
You don't need to rename the /etc/init.d file, just the symlink in
/etc/rc?.d.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: You don't need to rename the /etc/init.d file, just the symlink in /etc/rc?.d. Sure, if I reimplemented the update-rc.d functionality in postinst, which I'm not very fond of either. Maybe it's worth it, to keep the hack as minimal as possible... but we're bending policy 9.3 here. Regards, Jan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
This one time, at band camp, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar said: On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:27:35AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: The present situation forces all users of nisautofs to manually shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common setup... Moving autofs to start later (i.e. at 20) is probably unwise (as explained earlier), although this seems to be what most users currently do as a workaround. Maybe we should talk with the release team to get this in? If the release team approves that change we'll change portmap to start at S17 as already suggested by Javier, see #400952 [0]. I may be missing something, but why does it need to be moved? It starts in rcS as well as rc2, so this should only ever be an issue in the rare cases when you have to switch to runlevel 1 and back, right? This seems like a rare enough occurence I'm not sure it's worth worrying about too much, but I may be missing something here. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:20AM +, Stephen Gran wrote: I may be missing something, but why does it need to be moved? It starts in rcS as well as rc2, so this should only ever be an issue in the rare cases when you have to switch to runlevel 1 and back, right? This seems like a rare enough occurence I'm not sure it's worth worrying about too much, but I may be missing something here. Hi Stephen, the present situation has portmap at 18 and autofs and nis at 19; this is a problem even at normal bootup. Nis moving to 18 would improve things, but not fix them wholly for systems which switch to single-user and back - and that's where we are, discussing whether portmap may move its multiuser runlevel script to 17 so that nis could follow to 18. Regards, Jan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
block 341140 by 400952 thankyou Hi Anibal and Javier, I (as the new maintainer of autofs) would like to have the issue settled before Etch is released... what consequences do you fear could arise from moving the script? The present situation forces all users of nisautofs to manually shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common setup... Moving autofs to start later (i.e. at 20) is probably unwise (as explained earlier), although this seems to be what most users currently do as a workaround. Maybe we should talk with the release team to get this in? Or are you opposed to get this change into Etch? Regards, Jan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:27:35AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: block 341140 by 400952 thankyou Hi Anibal and Javier, I (as the new maintainer of autofs) would like to have the issue settled before Etch is released... what consequences do you fear could arise from moving the script? That's something we don't know. The present situation forces all users of nisautofs to manually shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common setup... Moving autofs to start later (i.e. at 20) is probably unwise (as explained earlier), although this seems to be what most users currently do as a workaround. Maybe we should talk with the release team to get this in? If the release team approves that change we'll change portmap to start at S17 as already suggested by Javier, see #400952 [0]. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/400952 Or are you opposed to get this change into Etch? Regards, Jan Best Regards, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
