On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 15:47 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2008/11/7 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 14:06 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > >> 2008/11/7 Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > In the 0.10 design, this is supported by adding a stanza like > >> > "manual" or "disabled" to the job - or removing one like "auto" > >> > (not yet decided) > >> > >> Where is this information stored? In the job file itself? > >> This imho would be a disadvantage to an external state/profile file, > >> as on package upgrades (at least on Debian and I guess rpm-based > >> distros too), you'd get prompts from the package management system. > >> > > Isn't that correct though? > > > > You'd want the prompt, you disabled a job that has changed. > > Not really. I want the package management system to update the job > file and keep the service disabled, without a dpkg prompt. > Let's take a different example.
You as the sysadmin change the conditions under which the service may be running; this is also defined in the job as a "while" clause. On upgrade, the job has changed to have a new condition. Should you get a dpkg prompt there? 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 upstart-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
