On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 12:37 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2008/1/16, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 12:45 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > > > 2008/1/16, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Disable a job from its definition, instead of just deleting it. > > > > > > > > I have again become unconvinced of the usefulness of this, > > > > instead favouring something more like "profiles" or "flags" > > > > where jobs can be disabled and enabled en-masse. > > > > > > > > Unless somebody can provide a use-case for having a defined job > > > > that cannot be started? > > > > > > > > > I can only speak from my own experience. E.g. I have apache2 installed > > > on it, but disabled it from starting at boot (I only need it on > > > special occasions and then I start it manually). > > > It's definitely possible to achieve that with profiles or flags, I > > > only think it would be more effort and less convenient. > > > > > But this is different again, this isn't disabling the job since you want > > to be able to start it manually -- this is causing the job to ignore > > events; arguably you can do that already by commenting out the > > appropriate lines in the definition. > > This approach has some problems though: > 1.) It changes the md5sum of the file. This results in dpkg prompts on > package upgrades. > So would any method of disabling a job from its definition ;)
The disabling would have to be external to the job files. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
