Bug#149709: BUG] section 10.3.3 does not provide enough guidance for package maintainers to use update-rc.d correctly
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Branden Robinson wrote: 2) The examples advise people to redirect the output of update-rc.d to /dev/null. Adam Heath and I feel this is a bad idea, and even if this change is not made, some people (like the author of lintian; see Bug #149700) think that this is normative. To me the example looks informative, not normative, as it would be inappropriate to put the example text into an ELF maintainer script or a perl script. I agree. if update-rc.d is too chatty for use in a maintainer script it either needs to be more silent and a verbose option added, or a new option for silent running needs to be added. So do I. update-rc.d is part of the init script structure for maintainer scripts, and its defaults should be tailored for that use. If people feel the need to /dev/null its output, it must be fixed. Humans can use -v for verbose mode, if they want that. Also, proper examples for updating the runlevels structure need to be added to policy. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#149709: [BUG] section 10.3.3 does not provide enough guidance for package maintainers to use update-rc.d correctly
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.6.1 Severity: normal A couple of points regarding policy 10.3.3 (Managing the links): 1) The policy does not mention that if your package changes its runlevels or priority, that update-rc.d package remove MUST be called, or update-rc.d will leave the existing links in place. Given that many other tools named update-* in Debian don't work this way, it might be advisable for the examples in Policy to mention this. 2) The examples advise people to redirect the output of update-rc.d to /dev/null. Adam Heath and I feel this is a bad idea, and even if this change is not made, some people (like the author of lintian; see Bug #149700) think that this is normative. To me the example looks informative, not normative, as it would be inappropriate to put the example text into an ELF maintainer script or a perl script. -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux zuul.progeny.com 2.4.18-386 #2 Sun Apr 14 10:38:08 EST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages debian-policy depends on: ii fileutils 4.1-10 GNU file management utilities -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#149709: BUG] section 10.3.3 does not provide enough guidance for package maintainers to use update-rc.d correctly
Previously Branden Robinson wrote: 2) The examples advise people to redirect the output of update-rc.d to /dev/null. Adam Heath and I feel this is a bad idea, and even if this change is not made, some people (like the author of lintian; see Bug #149700) think that this is normative. To me the example looks informative, not normative, as it would be inappropriate to put the example text into an ELF maintainer script or a perl script. I agree. if update-rc.d is too chatty for use in a maintainer script it either needs to be more silent and a verbose option added, or a new option for silent running needs to be added. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
