Re: file-rc vs. sysV init (was: enabling bootpc at startup)

1998-08-27 Thread Michael Stone 
Quoting the lone gunman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
 Why is file-rc not the default, just out of curiosity.  I found it
 much more intuitive, and a bit easier and faster to maintain.  The
 default sysV init scripts took me a bit longer to figure out.

First, the sysV mechanism is more common (e.g., redhat) so people
familiar with other platforms will look for it. Also, the single file is
a little more dangerous in my mind: if it gets corrupted (maybe someone
misstypes, or two people try writing at the same time) you'll have a
hard time getting booted properly.

Mike Stone

Re: file-rc vs. sysV init (was: enabling bootpc at startup)

1998-08-27 Thread Stephen J. Carpenter 
On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 02:20:28PM -0500, the lone gunman wrote:
 On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 08:19:34AM +0200, Torsten Hilbrich wrote:
  On: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 14:11:30 -0500 the lone gunman writes:
   
   On my Debian 1.3 system, I installed the package which removes the
   sysV style init scripts and installs the /etc/runlevel.conf system.
   I did not see this package in my hamm install.  Did I overlook it?
  
  Yes, it's called file-rc and to be found in stable/main/admin.
  
  BTW: Search the package file for runlevel.conf and you will find it.
 
 Why is file-rc not the default, just out of curiosity.  I found it
 much more intuitive, and a bit easier and faster to maintain.  The
 default sysV init scripts took me a bit longer to figure out.

Well...it is not the traditional way of configuring runlevels.
besides...I LIKE the sysvinit way of doing it with SymLinks

Also...when I installed file-rc (accidently) a while back...it completle
fucked my system. It wasn't properly unmounting filesystems on reboot.
When I found it was doing this I set out to find out why (not even
knowing that file-rc was installed)...lost the whole filesystem.

Maybe this has been fixed?

 I would install file-rc agian, but I have a worry.  I noticed when
 updating/installing new packages with file-rc installed, I get a *LOT*
 of errors that are something like:
 
 update-rc.d: integer expected
 
 or something leading me to believe that dpkg still tries to run the
 update-rc.d script used in a sysV init system, while update-rc.d
 is obsolete if file-rc is used.
 
 Any comments on this?  Is this perhaps fixed in Hamm?

I dunnoI would NOT want to see this become the default...
I think it is allot less flexible than sysvinit. 
if you like it...go on ahead...whatever floats your boat
-Steve
-- 
/* -- Stephen Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*/
E-mail Bumper Stickers:
A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!
honk if you Love Linux

file-rc vs. sysV init (was: enabling bootpc at startup)

1998-08-26 Thread the lone gunman 
On Wed, Aug 26, 1998 at 08:19:34AM +0200, Torsten Hilbrich wrote:
 On: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 14:11:30 -0500 the lone gunman writes:
  
  On my Debian 1.3 system, I installed the package which removes the
  sysV style init scripts and installs the /etc/runlevel.conf system.
  I did not see this package in my hamm install.  Did I overlook it?
 
 Yes, it's called file-rc and to be found in stable/main/admin.
 
 BTW: Search the package file for runlevel.conf and you will find it.

Why is file-rc not the default, just out of curiosity.  I found it
much more intuitive, and a bit easier and faster to maintain.  The
default sysV init scripts took me a bit longer to figure out.

I would install file-rc agian, but I have a worry.  I noticed when
updating/installing new packages with file-rc installed, I get a *LOT*
of errors that are something like:

update-rc.d: integer expected

or something leading me to believe that dpkg still tries to run the
update-rc.d script used in a sysV init system, while update-rc.d
is obsolete if file-rc is used.

Any comments on this?  Is this perhaps fixed in Hamm?

Thanks