On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:03:16 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /usr/local, or we have a FHS violation.
>
>Please request that we enhance invoke-rc.d to look on /usr/local first,
>then (through a wis
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:32:02AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /usr/local, or we have a FHS violation.
> Additionally, the requirement of going through the alternatives system
> for policy-rc.d selection is somewhat mis-placed, because it suggests
> to me that policy-rc
Scripsit Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:44:42 +1100, Matthew Palmer
>>Steve answered your first question. The second question makes no sense,
>>since policy-rc.d is supposed to be written by the administrator to fit
>>their local policy.
> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /usr/local, or we have a FHS violation.
Please request that we enhance invoke-rc.d to look on /usr/local first,
then (through a wishlist bug). Looks like a good idea at first glance.
> Additionally, the requirement of going t
4 matches
Mail list logo
