Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Can insserv made better?"):
> As it was already pointed out to you, such occurences were due to
> incomplete dependencies declared in the initscripts - And as such,
> they were bugs in the respective packages. The right way to fix them
> is to provide the needed dependency information in the startup
> scripts.
That is the right way in the medium and long term for us as the
developers to fix those problems, certainly.
But in the short term, the right thing for a user to do is surely
simply not to move their working system to insserv ?
> Yes, upgrades (specially upgrades of complex, production systems)
> should be faced with care and after having thoroughly studied the
> relevant release notes. Now, there is a real intention from Debian's
> part to getting out of the 1980s Sxx/Kxx scheme. It is an obsolete
> scheme, not suitable for our amount of packages, which had effectively
> been squished to much less because of the inability to declare what
> depended on what, and assuming a flat world. Dependency-based boot
> ordering gives important benefits to our users.
What direct, concrete, benefit does the new arrangement give to the
user on an existing working system being upgraded to squeeze ?
Ian.
--
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/19765.43522.760976.361...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
