Re: [RFC] *-rc.d - rc.d-* transition

2002-09-07 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* (rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). Is there documentation online

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d - rc.d-* transition

2002-09-07 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* (rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). Uh, that seems entirely gratuitous.

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d - rc.d-* transition

2002-09-07 Thread Andreas Schuldei
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [020907 13:11]: On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* (rc.d-invoke,

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d - rc.d-* transition

2002-09-07 Thread Chris Lawrence
On Sep 07, Andreas Schuldei wrote: Uh, that seems entirely gratuitous. I can not parse your comment. dict gratuitous, then it should make sense :-) IMO it would be more worthwhile to do this in conjunction with adding extra functionality/package requirements (i.e. better/more abstract init

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d - rc.d-* transition

2002-09-07 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 01:14:17PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [020907 13:11]: On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all *-rc.d utilities

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d - rc.d-* transition

2002-09-07 Thread Herbert Xu
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it is the right thing to do, since it removes the .d from the end of the file, which indicates a directory, normally. So we would avoid missconceptions. If that's the only reason then this is totally pointless. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out!