On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:16:23AM +0100, Javier Fern??ndez-Sanguino Pe??a wrote:
> As for the suggestion of moving portmap to have it started earlier in the > boot sequence (maybe S17 instead of S18) I don't think that would be an issue > but I don't think it would be a good move to do now that portmap is frozen > and we are close to the deep freeze. It's unfortunately relatively common to use autofs in conjunction with NIS maps. > Quite sincerily, I don't see why it should not work currently. Portmap is > started *before* nis and autofs (in runlevel S, S43) before going multi-user, > so it really doesn't matter if it's started in S18 or S17 in multi-user Like you say, this is only a problem when changing runlevels after the initial boot since portmap is also started from rcS.d but that's still an issue and I don't want to introduce a something that's obviously a regression in that case if I can avoid it. > I'm OK for making the change (S18->S17 in multiuser runlevels) but I'm > concerned on the impact to other things in Etch... The reason that this has come up is that there has already been a change in autofs (and has been for much of the release cycle). -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
