On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:51:11 -0600, Arthur Machlas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...) >> Before I fill a bug report (I think a service that has been manually >> disabled should keep its state regardless any further update it can be >> applied afterwards), I would like to get some feedback... what do you >> think on this matter? I missed something -there is a better way to >> handle this or should I write a report? > > I'd definitely hold off on the bug report. I think you should look at > the lsb headers of the network-manager script in /etc/init.d and change > them to stop on all levels, start on none, then run "insserv" without > any arguments to again disable network-manager. If this isn't a future > proof method of disabling it then there is definitley a problem in that > packages update maintenance scripts. Are you suggesting to manually edit the "/etc/init.d/network-manager" script header to fit my needs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I expect this file (as any file located here) can be updated at any time and so replacing any of the customized values I can have written in there :-? I can try it though, just want to be sure this is not going to cause any problem in the future :-) Oh, and thanks both, Mike and you, for replying. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.07.19.35...@gmail.com
