Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

Chris Waters wrote: > I think there is one argument against the proposal which has been > completely overlooked: update-rc.d is consistent with other similar > debian utilities like update-menus and update-alternatives. This is > not a strong argument, but I don't see any strong arguments on eithe

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Chris Waters wrote: > ~ $ grep update-rc.d /var/lib/dpkg/info/*{pre,post}{inst,rm}|wc -l >88 If you use update-rc.d, you will call init scripts with 99.9% probability. That means you _will have to_ switch to invoke-rc.d (sooner or later anyway). For people using deb

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 07:20:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > I dislike the rc.d anywhere in the name on general aestetic principles, > but Chris's arguments about the update- prefix are persuasive to me. I'd > much rather see the "rc.d" name dropped where possible for "init", so > we'd have invoke

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 07:20:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > I dislike the rc.d anywhere in the name on general aestetic principles, > but Chris's arguments about the update- prefix are persuasive to me. I'd > much rather see the "rc.d" name dropped where possible for "init", so > we'd have invoke-

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sun, 08 Sep 2002, Chris Waters wrote: > First, I'd like to say that I'm fairly neutral in this debate. None So am I, actually. I am proposing it because I said at debconf2 that I would, after the people there got convinced it would be a good thing by whomever proposed it. > > 1. Since we'll b

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:58:31AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > The second > reason is also about consistency: during the transition, there will be > some packages using update-rc.d and some using rc.d-update, which may > confuse people studying our packages. Not strong reasons, but reasons > none

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > I am not sure. Maybe Joey Hess, or one of the others kept some. Nope. Does anyone have a debconf transcript? What happened to those video tapes? I wanted to review some of the discussion during my debconf talk too. I dislike the rc.d anywhere in the name on ge

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

First, I'd like to say that I'm fairly neutral in this debate. None of my packages will be affected either way, and I have no strong feelings about the namespaces involved. Nevertheless, I think there is one argument against the proposal which has been completely overlooked: update-rc.d is consis

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sat, 07 Sep 2002, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all > >*-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* > >(rc.d-inv

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is the right thing to do, since it removes the .d from > the end of the file, which indicates a directory, normally. So we > would avoid missconceptions. If that's the only reason then this is totally pointless. -- Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 01:14:17PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [020907 13:11]: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all > > > *-rc.d uti

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Sep 07, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > > Uh, that seems entirely gratuitous. > > I can not parse your comment. dict gratuitous, then it should make sense :-) IMO it would be more worthwhile to do this in conjunction with adding extra functionality/package requirements (i.e. better/more abstract in

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [020907 13:11]: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all > > *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* > > (rc.d-invoke,

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all > *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* > (rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). Uh, that seems entirely gratuitous.

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all >*-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* >(rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). Is there documentation onlin

Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

Hi, Sounds right to me. manoj -- "Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." Peter Neumann, about usenet Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

[RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition

As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* (rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). Transition plan: 1a. Rename all scripts to their new names, add compatibility symlinks to the sysvinit and file-rc