]] Jonathan Nieder > Russ Allbery wrote: > > > That seems like a feature, not a bug, in the case of configuration > > installed by Debian packages such as what's cited in this part of the > > thread. If I have a policy rule that says not to run that init script, I > > mean it, and I don't want ifup running it anyway. > > It's just plain not clear to me what policy-rc.d should and should not > be able to do. The "do nothing and pretend you did something" > semantics, while they work ok in the context of post-installation > scripts that may or may not start the just-configured daemon, are > always going to feel a little weird in general because they break the > patterns
They don't always work right in the context of postinst script either. A fairly common request I'm hearing from people is «don't start the daemon on initial installation (because we'll drop a configuration in place as the next step and then start it)». policy-rc.d can stop it from being started at all, but it can't really know whether this is the initial installation or not. As Steve says, that's not really this bug, though. [...] > >> Another downside is that invoke-rc.d is Debian-specific. > > > > So are the network hooks under discussion. > > I think the former is relevant and the latter isn't. That may seem > odd, so let me mention a couple of examples of fallout. I'm not at all convinced invoke-rc.d is the right interface for this, partially due to you easily ending up with cycles such as seen in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=635777 where postfix depends on network being up, but the network isn't considered up until postfix has started. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87limzac71....@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
