DJ Lucas wrote: > There are a couple of packages, non-obvious packages at that, that > install their own bootscripts and they work in the current proposal > without modifications using the lsb functions.
I must not install them, then. Alternately, I do install them, but don't care to use their bootscripts (I think that might apply to one; fcron, bind, dhcpcd v5, or something like that, maybe). :-) > I suspect that we'll see more in the future, however, I have not > actually confirmed that they do not work within the old layout > (sysinit/S change is required). Changing sysinit to S is fine. I don't generally use the rc*.d directory names, just init.d. > Bryan pointed out that the old layout lent itself better to tab > completion, the savings is only one keystroke, but you actually have > to type more _characters_ in the new layout as opposed to pressing > tab repeatedly. I don't yet know how much work is involved in > reversing that decision, but it should at least be discussed. If other packages are a concern, then I think an /etc/init.d symlink might work as well. There's already too much in /etc that starts with in or ini, so adding one more entry there doesn't seem too bad. I dislike littering /usr/sbin with symlinks, for the record. I actually dislike it even more since it's in /usr, given that these are links to bootscripts, but moving it to /sbin is also pretty bad (since now it's a much larger chunk of a small directory). It's also one more set of links that needs to be kept up to date (though that's probably rare). The service script might work, but it's a complete re-training for me, and I'm a bit of a curmudgeon. That's probably not a reason to avoid doing it, though. :-P
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
