On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:43:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I created a elaborate test case tos ee if we are in a chroot, if
>> not if /proc/1 is actually /sbin/init, and that telinit exists (example
>> below).
>
> Why are they not able to ignore the errors from telinit? All checked
> packages uses this to ask init to reexecute itself and free old library
> references. Nothing in this is critical to the usability of the packages
> themself or the system.
Even if the security system has changed? I dont't think so
(better safe than sorry). Especially if the changes impact the ability
to load the security policy in the first place. Just take it that
there may be cases where it is better to abort the install rather than
not re-exec init.
>> Does this need discussion?
> Yes, it is highly sysvinit and Linux specific.
The solution was. But this is not a generic solution in the
first place. What we have is a potential issue, which was solved in a
particular manner for specific packages. If this issue has broader
impact, a more generic solution will be needed. Whic brings us to the
raison d'etre for this thread.
manoj
--
Two sure ways to tell a REALLY sexy man; the first is, he has a bad
memory. I forget the second.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
