]] Petter Reinholdtsen | [Tollef Fog Heen] | > It seems quite inappropriate to limit this information to just a | > single init system when we have more than one in Debian. We should | > strive to move that information into a init-agnostic place, and I | > don't see why it would be wrong to just have the relevant init | > scripts Provide the relevant facility. | | The simple issue is that this do not work with insserv, the first and | as far as I have tested only system using the headers.
Sounds like a bug in insserv, then. | I suspect that it would be better to list the provided virtual | facilities in the scripts themselves, but believe it is a bad idea to | do so until the LSB clearly state that this is the way that it should | be done and insserv have been changed to handle it. The LSB doesn't really talk about what non-LSB applications should do, and no packages in Debian are LSB apps, so I suspect this is a matter of us deciding something sensible and trying to make sure it's compatible with what the other distros do and then run with that. | I brought this topic up with the insserv upstream developers, but they | believe it is a bad idea. Did they provide any reasoning for this? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r5ffigs9....@qurzaw.linpro.no
