Please vote this idea on Ubuntu brainstorm website: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8602/
Here it is the description: I want to try with this idea, with some multiple suggestion.... and apologies in advance for my bad English :) An old and wise rule about SysV (used for instance on HP-UX), says that Sxx + Kxx, should be equal to 100. This rule has never been adopted in Ubuntu/Debian, and even with upstart, we continue having a lot of confusion. This rule used on HP-UX simply means: what is started first must be killed last, and start order must be the reverse of kill order. Of course, if a service doesn't need to be stopped, you put "no action" on stop procedure, but for clarity, you still put the process Kxx, on the right place, with the right number! On all other Unix/Linux in /etc/rc6.d you only have Kxx, but in Debian/Ubuntu in rc6.d you have either Sxx and Kxx. The /etc/rc6.d/Sxx is meant anyway as a Kill (even if it's called S), but this is pretty useless and confusing. I paste this row from the file /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.runlevels.gz: "In the future, the /etc/rc6.d/SXXxxxx scripts MIGHT be moved to /etc/rc6.d/K1XXxxxx for clarity." In Ubuntu there is actually a messy situation. For instance the default for "ufw" is to have two scripts: K39 and S39 .... It must be also noted that on HP-UX the number of services is 1000, and not 100. Using 1000 instead of 100 is smarter, because, service with same number are treated in alphabetically order, and I don't think this is what we really want. In Ubuntu, lot of services have the same number, and therefore they are treated alphabetically. I hope everything is clear, and my final idea is: 1) avoid services with same numbers, add one zero to service, and increase service numbers up to thousand. 2) implement the wise rule Kxxx + Sxxx = 1000 (or Kxx + Sxx = 100) 3) implement the suggestion from the debian developers, and then abandon /etc/rc6.d/Sxx and /etc/rc0.d/Sxx, in favor of /etc/rc6.d/K1xx and /etc/rc0.d/K1xx I appreciate any comment, discussion and even arguing! -- initscripts rules confused ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/229869 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
