On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:35:06PM +0100, Jan Wagner wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> while thinking about how to solve #508189, where I need to change the
> position
> of the initscript in bootorder, I thought it would not sufficient to change
> only the call of dh_installinit in the rules file.
>
> If
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 08:07:16PM +0200, Jan Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 04 April 2009, Kel Modderman wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 March 2009 00:35:06 Jan Wagner wrote:
> > > while thinking about how to solve #508189, where I need to change the
> > > position of the initscript in bootorder,
Hi,
On Saturday 04 April 2009, Kel Modderman wrote:
> On Thursday 19 March 2009 00:35:06 Jan Wagner wrote:
> > while thinking about how to solve #508189, where I need to change the
> > position of the initscript in bootorder, I thought it would not
> > sufficient to change only the call of dh_inst
On Thursday 19 March 2009 00:35:06 Jan Wagner wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> while thinking about how to solve #508189, where I need to change the
> position
> of the initscript in bootorder, I thought it would not sufficient to change
> only the call of dh_installinit in the rules file.
>
> If an use
Harald Braumann dijo [Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:57:45AM +0100]:
> > Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
> > we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
> >
> > Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> > it will be either completely impossible, or
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Harald Braumann wrote:
> > Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> > it will be either completely impossible, or it will take two or three
> > stable releases to do it). It was trouble enough to implement
> > invoke-rc.d.
>
> Who would want to do
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:51:09 -0300
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Only, in this case, we need it abstracted (which it already is), and
> we need it to _remain_ abstracted.
>
> Otherwise, we will have massive pains to switch initsystems (as in:
> it will be either completely impossible, or
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:16:31AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >> It seems to me that it would be a lot less effort to fix this by removing
> >> file-rc in Debian, which has only a handful (137) of popcon reports. Even
> >> if we take into consideration
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:16:31AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> It seems to me that it would be a lot less effort to fix this by removing
>> file-rc in Debian, which has only a handful (137) of popcon reports. Even
>> if we take into consideration that popcon isn't a good source of absolute
>> numb
* Steve Langasek , 2009-03-21, 17:07:
I know some package maintainers handle this by ignoring the existence
of file-rc and just removing symlinks directly in /etc/rcX.d/. As
long as file-rc exist and is supposed in Debian, I believe it is a bad
idea. :(
It seems to me that it would be a lot le
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:13:37AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I know some package maintainers handle this by ignoring the existence
> of file-rc and just removing symlinks directly in /etc/rcX.d/. As
> long as file-rc exist and is supposed in Debian, I believe it is a bad
> idea. :(
It s
[Jan Wagner]
> while thinking about how to solve #508189, where I need to change
> the position of the initscript in bootorder, I thought it would not
> sufficient to change only the call of dh_installinit in the rules
> file.
This is the kind of issues the dependency based boot sequencing is
men
Hi there,
while thinking about how to solve #508189, where I need to change the position
of the initscript in bootorder, I thought it would not sufficient to change
only the call of dh_installinit in the rules file.
If an user changed the symlinks, I guess I will break his changes. How should
13 matches
Mail list logo
