Le 25-06-2012, à 14:47:58 +0100, Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 01:51:36PM +0200, Steve R. Petruzzello wrote: > > I noticed that some scripts in /etc/init.d/ are suffixed by .sh and some are > > not. [...] All except console-screen.sh, hwclock.sh and keymap.sh are from > > the initscripts package. > > > > So 1) nowhere is .sh suffixing mentioned and 2) some scripts are not named > > by > > their package's name (hwclock.sh is part of the util-linux package). Is > > there > > a reason for this? > > Nowadays, it's essentially the case that > - scripts with a .sh suffix are run from rcS But not all scripts in /etc/rcS.d/ have a .sh suffix (for instance S09mdadm-raid). > - they are not intended to be run by hand and/or after boot, or > else they can screw up the system state > > > Would it be purely aesthetics to clean out these script names? > > Yes, though the above distinction about them being run from rcS > would be lost. And given the history, and the fact that other > scripts depend on them (the names are used in the inter-script > dependencies), renaming them is do-able, but not something we > should be doing this close to the freeze. Sure. > > PS: Is there a way to list all packages putting a file in /etc/init.d/? > > dpkg -S $(ls -1 /etc/init.d/*) Sorry, I was thinking of the whole archive, not only the installed package. Thanks, Steve -- 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/20120625135929.GA16892@localhost
