Hi, Mike: On Saturday 15 January 2011 19:51:43 Mike Bird wrote: > On Sat January 15 2011 01:59:06 Julien BLACHE wrote: > > insserv has issues, but it's still an improvement over the previous > > situation and, unlike the other new init systems, it's actually > > backward-compatible. > > I have no objection to you using insserv. I object to people > being tricked into using insserv. It tends to break complex > systems and people should be warned about this danger rather > than being told that insserv is recommended and then making a > bad decision based on sysv-rc.postinst's faulty recommendation.
Well, we can try to be positive and change a lose for a win here, can't we? I'd say that insserv main problem now is that of transtition: yes, it can break your system in the worst possible way, making it unable to boot, specially if you happen to be a professional system administrator caring about complex Debian servers. But that's more a symptom of the problems of the old system which the new rises, than of the new system itself, and once your system is properly recovered, insserv tends to work properly (as it will work properly for newly installed systems) and it's expected to be easier to maintain for the years to come than the old one. So the main problem is "only" transitioning the system, isn't it? Why don't you have then a look at Squeeze's release notes (which any wise Debian system administrator will read upon upgrade) and make sure that it states the problem in the most clear way and/or propose the changes to that document that you percieve to be needed? That would be feasible in current freeze condition of the distribution and it would be a good effort/benefit ratio for your effort. Cheers. -- 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/201101152221.33941.jesus.nava...@undominio.net
