Justin Pryzby schrieb: >> It would be a pro to take this into the policy, wouldn't it? > > It is 9.3.2: > > | [...]
No, it isn't. This part of the policy just says that it should not kill other processes, which are eventually named unfortunately, just because the process it *should* kill does not run. It does not say anything about how the init script should behave, if the application is not running. But, and thats important, this does again recommend to use start-stop-daemon which exits with a non-zero exit-code if there is nothing to stop. > It's a very interesting question whether packages should inhibit > starting a daemon that wasn't running when it would otherwise have > been stopped. I guess the current state of affairs is that a That is another thing, but yes, I agree that this is very interestering as well. > think the ideal situation is that a manually-stopped daemon would > cause a message to be printed: "Not starting food: not stopped at > preinst time" in the same style of messages that are shown with > [...] ACK. I think this would be a good proposal. But how to realise this properly? It would need a change to the init script, would it? Regards Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
