I still disagree that it's "undefined behaviour" -- if we have used the actual init.d script so far to start e. g. mysql under upstart, then this does not sound either racy nor undefined; it surely isn't what we *intended* to do, though?
My concern is, this fix will change behaviour for *all* packages shipping upstart jobs and sysvinit scripts, and it is not a given that the two do equivalent things. So if we now call /etc/init/frobnicator.conf instead of /etc/init.d/frobnicator and the former has a bug or a changed behaviour, that would be a regression? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1273462 Title: Users can mistakenly run init.d scripts and cause problems if an equivalent upstart job already exists To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lsb/+bug/1273462/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
