On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 05:47:24PM -0800, Mike Bird wrote: > On Sat January 15 2011 16:33:28 Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > If insserv meses up so bad, shouldn't it be able to detect that things > > will go wrong too? > > insserv completely discards the Snn/Knn values and generates a new > boot ordering based on much less information and which consequently > fails more often.
> If you want insserv not to mess up then the solution a to have > insserv generate dependencies from the Snn/Knn values and then > allow sysadmins to delete/disable dependencies that aren't relevant. > (I don't recommend this but it is a solution.) This is complete and utter rubbish. Please consider whether what you are writing is adding anything useful or constructive before wasting the time of all the people reading this list. This is factually incorrect, adds nothing new to the discussion, and the last paragraph is just provocative trolling. Bringing legitimate problems to our attention in a non-provocative and constructive manner is acceptable; pointless trolling is *not*. You're saying that an unwieldy ad-hoc fixed list of numbers and names is superior to detailed dependency information… This is patently untrue. But whatever you personally believe, the reality is that the broad consensus of the project has been to move to a dependency-based boot system, and this was done nearly *18 months* ago. At this point complaining will achieve nothing: if you find any remaining dependency issues the solution is to report bugs so that the issues are fixed. We *have* moved to a dependency-based boot system, and you really don't have a say in the matter at this point. It's *done*, and you'll have to live with it. Your (rejected) patch was not addressing the issue. Documenting the pros and cons of moving to dependency-based boot is entirely beside the point: we have moved to dependency-based boot. *Your* choice is not if to move, but when. I can't say I'm the biggest fan of insserv myself, but that's what is currently supported, and if you want something different, then you'll need to step up and start doing the work yourself. I do hope we'll have systemd (preferred) or upstart post-squeeze, but I don't see /any/ value in returning to fixed-order scripts: we lived with their multitude of deficiencies for decades, and now we have a working solution to that. Your efforts would be best focussed on finding, fixing and reporting any issues which are causing you problems, not griping about decisions which were already taken. It was changed in July 2009 for crying out loud! You've had 18 months to report any issues… Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
