On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:58:31AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > The second > reason is also about consistency: during the transition, there will be > some packages using update-rc.d and some using rc.d-update, which may > confuse people studying our packages. Not strong reasons, but reasons > nonetheless.
It also breaks partial upgrades once the transition is complete: upgrading sysvinit to an "rc.d-update" only version will mean you're no longer able to upgrade old packages to anything but "rc.d-update" compliant versions. If one of those packages happen to have become unmaintained in the meantime, you're a bit screwed. There's no way of avoiding this, since update-rc.d is considered "essential" and no one depends on it. You could do a tedious usr/share/doc-style transition over two or three releases, but there just isn't any point to all this. How pretty names are isn't *that* important. If they were, we'd've changed "/etc" to "/conf" and so on years ago. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgpnIOcIYPTmV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
