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
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.
* 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,
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
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
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!
6 matches
Mail list logo