On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:04:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Renaming init script links, for which we have no adequate tool and which
is not an easily reversible process because nothing remembers what the
init script links were originally and what runlevels they were enabled
in. This
On Thursday 02 April 2009 01:03:27 Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
currently we seem to have no clear policy in Debian how to handle
the question: Shall a service started once its installed or not?
The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't,
Le samedi 04 avril 2009 à 22:23 +1000, Kel Modderman a écrit :
An interface for disabling/enabling system boot scripts has been proposed
and committed [1] and also made available for dependency based boot [2].
These changes may need to be discussed further now though, as Steve Langasek
seems
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:07:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
Right Thing To Do,
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed. Didn't think about the possibility of diversions. I guess
diverting the init scripts could be a solution (besides that it needs
some further work to the service managing utility). Then I'd
whole-heartedly agree with
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Indeed. Didn't think about the possibility of diversions. I guess
diverting the init scripts could be a solution (besides that it needs
some further work to
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:39:34PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
the question: Shall a service started once its installed or not?
The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:54:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:38:46PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Well, its only about *new* services after installation. The intention
behind that is that some people don't like to run un- or half-configured
daemons
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:04:10 -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
wrote:
* Using policy-rc.d, which is at least underdocumented. I've used Debian
for a long time and I still have difficulty figuring out just what I'm
supposed to put where to disable a specific init script for a specific
Le mercredi 01 avril 2009 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
I think this should be a separate program, reserving update-rc.d for
maintainer script use. But please, not 'chkconfig', which is an entirely
unintuitive name. :)
Apart from the name which sucks, it definitely sounds like the
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
think it would be a great solution if update-rc.d gained the following
features:
I
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:51:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:56:43PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
1.) There is already
On Thu,02.Apr.09, 13:12:25, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
think it would be a great
Hi there!
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:11:14 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Thu,02.Apr.09, 13:12:25, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
Right Thing To Do, but the tools
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
think it would
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
ACK. What speaks against 'service'? :)
If we use the name 'service', please also make it handle service
starting/stopping, which is what the program of the same name is
traditionally
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:21:47PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
That said, if the runlevel editor is appropriately integrated with the
system, it doesn't have to limit itself to waiting for the service to be
installed before setting a policy for the service. The editor could divert
Hi,
currently we seem to have no clear policy in Debian how to handle
the question: Shall a service started once its installed or not?
The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't, because they don't have a reasonable default
configuration and some
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
There are clear disadvantages with this:
- The administrator has no way to influence the decision weither
a service shall run directly after installation.
- The administrator needs to apply and know about several different
ways
Le mercredi 01 avril 2009 à 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
* We add a new configuration file (possibly /etc/rc.conf because thats
a file that exists in different distributions and has a similar meaning)
which can have the following configuration settings:
*
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
currently we seem to have no clear policy in Debian how to handle
the question: Shall a service started once its installed or not?
The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't, because they don't have a reasonable
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:31:04PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
There are clear disadvantages with this:
- The administrator has no way to influence the decision weither
a service shall run directly after installation.
- The
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:38:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 01 avril 2009 à 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
* We add a new configuration file (possibly /etc/rc.conf because thats
a file that exists in different distributions and has a similar meaning)
which
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 20:30 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
You finished reading my mail after that paragraph, didn't you? ;)
Pretty much. It looked long and complicated and I was in a hurry. I
skimmed it but I see now I missed that you actually knew about
policy-rc.d.
Let me make amends by
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
1.) There is already a documented interface, how to disable a service (i.e.
renaming the S?? symlinks for that runlevel to K??). Adding another layer to
do
this
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:50:47PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 20:30 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
You finished reading my mail after that paragraph, didn't you? ;)
Pretty much. It looked long and complicated and I was in a hurry. I
skimmed it but I see now
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 21:02 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
Is dislike that format, because users are already used to the RUN_*
system and additional people changing from another distribution or even
operating system will notice similarities, which is good as well.
RUN_* variables make it
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
* RUN_NEW_SERVICES_AFTER_INSTALL=yes|no|1|0|true|false
I dislike the semantics of this because it does not allow for the case
where for whatever reason (e.g. new system install) you have to reboot
shortly after installing a package before you had a chance to
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
1.) There is already a documented interface, how to disable a service (i.e.
renaming the S?? symlinks for that runlevel to K??). Adding
This one time, at band camp, Frans Pop said:
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
* RUN_NEW_SERVICES_AFTER_INSTALL=yes|no|1|0|true|false
I dislike the semantics of this because it does not allow for the case
where for whatever reason (e.g. new system install) you have to reboot
shortly after
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
the question: Shall a service started once its installed or not?
The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't, because they don't have a reasonable default
configuration and some
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl writes:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
the question: Shall a service started once its installed or not? The
current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't, because they don't have
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:03:07PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
It feels to me like we're all kind of ignoring the current mechanism for
enabling and disabling services that we already have.
It might be useful in this conversation to seperate out two different
ideas:
yeah, i think these two
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:39:34 +0200, Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl
wrote:
If a service shouldn't be run, there is a good command to disable it:
dpkg --remove
My notebook has a big number of server packages installed with
services disabled for the sake of documentation.
Greetings
Marc
--
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:38:46PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Well, its only about *new* services after installation. The intention
behind that is that some people don't like to run un- or half-configured
daemons immediately after installing them.
It's Debian policy that packages should
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
We also don't seem to have a clear consense how to disable/temporarily
deactivate services. The current situation is that some packages include
a file in /etc/default with a variable RUN, RUN_PACKAGENAME,
START_ON_BOOT or even
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:04:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
* Using policy-rc.d, which is at least underdocumented. I've used Debian
for a long time and I still have difficulty figuring out just what I'm
supposed to put where to disable a specific init script for a specific
service
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
1.) There is already a documented interface, how to disable a service (i.e.
renaming the S?? symlinks for that runlevel to K??). Adding another layer to
do
this is
38 matches
Mail list logo
