Your message dated Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:30:01 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line This has been fixed in the latest debian-policy upload
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:51:08AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I would like to put this amendment into the next version of policy in
> > the next few weeks. However, the scripts still do not appear to be in
> > the sysvinit or file-rc packages;
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I would like to put this amendment into the next version of policy in
> the next few weeks. However, the scripts still do not appear to be in
> the sysvinit or file-rc packages; do you need help here? This can't
> go into policy until that's happened.
I would like to put this amendment into the next version of policy in
the next few weeks. However, the scripts still do not appear to be in
the sysvinit or file-rc packages; do you need help here? This can't
go into policy until that's happened.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is the final "spellchecked" version of the policy diff.
The invoke-rc.d scripts are available in http://people.debian.org/~hmh/
(I think someone might want to test the file-rc one a bit more, it was NOT
tested as much as the sysvinit one).
If there are no objections, this ammendment should
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 11:29:12AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > This has now been seconded twice; it should have its status changed to
> > "accepted" and I guess that the sysvinit and file-rc packages should
> > have bugs against them to include
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This has now been seconded twice; it should have its status changed to
> "accepted" and I guess that the sysvinit and file-rc packages should
> have bugs against them to include the necessary scripts. Perhaps they
The file-rc scripts are not written yet
This has now been seconded twice; it should have its status changed to
"accepted" and I guess that the sysvinit and file-rc packages should
have bugs against them to include the necessary scripts. Perhaps they
should both Provide: invoke-rc so that packages using it can depend on
invoke-rc? Or sh
On 23-Nov-00, 05:13 (CST), Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The policy proposal itself is attached to this email, I am looking for
> seconds, now.
>
> The proposal has been seconded once so far, by Anthony Towns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I second this proposal, presuming the constra
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 09:13:08AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > This is the final revision of the invoke-rc.d script and proposal, Posted as
> > a changelog to minimise bandwidth usage.
>
> I hope not, as there is a typo in your policy-patch. :)
>
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 09:13:08AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> This is the final revision of the invoke-rc.d script and proposal, Posted as
> a changelog to minimise bandwidth usage.
I hope not, as there is a typo in your policy-patch. :)
Matt
> + other locally-defined constrains tha
This is the final revision of the invoke-rc.d script and proposal, Posted as
a changelog to minimise bandwidth usage.
Changelog:
(policy proposal)
* no changes since last changelog
(invoke-rc.d)
* less verbosity on common situations
- no error message on deny unless --disclose-deny
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You could also reasonably map all the maintainer scripts invocations of
> invoke-rc.d to no-ops in order to just leave all services running during
> an upgrade (rather than possibly shutting them down for an extended period,
> say).
This is what I'd reco
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 01:00:04PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > actually. For restart/restart-if-running it's something of an
> > attempt to DWIM (if I say "restart" out of runlevel, I probably mean
> > "restart-if-running", so do that) but I don't see what other uses it
> > could have...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 02:19:50PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Well, really they wouldn't even need to read the docs; it should be obvious
> from what gets displayed on screen as to what's happening. Either:
> Restarting foo daemon: foo.
> o
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 10:27:14AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 16-Nov-00, 20:30 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> > /etc/init.d/cron and /etc/init.d/setserial treat unknown arguments the
> > same as start. Error output goes variously to stdout and stderr.
Ooops. /etc/init.d/console-screen.sh w
On 16-Nov-00, 20:30 (CST), Anthony Towns wrote:
> For example, /etc/init.d/chrony has an "e)" instead of a "*)"
> as its error case, which means it'll quietly exit successfully.
> /etc/init.d/nviboot does likewise, but through omission rather than
> accident.
re: nviboot: you're right, I'll fix
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 02:19:50PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > > As I said, they're there to avoid confusing the user. If they had no
> > > possible purpose I'd have removed them before invoke-rc.d ever seen the
> > > light of this list :-)
> > I guess I'm not seeing what's confusing abou
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Despite how it may appear, I'm not doing this merely to be obnoxious. :(
Ok, don't worry.
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 09:13:10AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > As I said, they're there to avoid confusing the user. If they had no
> > possible purpos
Despite how it may appear, I'm not doing this merely to be obnoxious. :(
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 09:13:10AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> As I said, they're there to avoid confusing the user. If they had no
> possible purpose I'd have removed them before invoke-rc.d ever seen the
> light of
New revision of the policy proposal is attached.
Changelog:
(policy)
* Remove any mentions of 'restart-if-running'.
'restart-if-running' will be proposed separately.
(invoke-rc.d)
* Remove any mentions of 'restart-if-running' as well as any
related code.
* "restart" out-of-run
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I could leave the more verbosy stuff that fallbacks cause, but THAT would
> > give quite a lot of room to user confusion. When someone starts the holy
> > war against the amount of crap a upgrade sends to the screen, and AFTER the
> > TeX and emacsen-r
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 07:34:46AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:06:36PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > If you hide error messages, you'll make it harder for people to notice
> > bugs in their init scripts when th
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:06:36PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> If you hide error messages, you'll make it harder for people to notice
> bugs in their init scripts when they upload a new package (let's see,
> yup, seems to work fine in my postinst,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:06:36PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > I'm also (duh) against falling back to a new, optional argument without
> > any indication that's appropriate when called. I think that's a really bad
> > design. But I'm not really sure what more I can say to convince you thi
(sorry for the Delay, workload has skyrocked for a few days -HMH)
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I still don't like restart-if-running though. I don't think "if"s should be
> in the arguments, and I'd be much more inclined towards something like:
>
> if [ `/etc/init.d/foo statu
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:32:46PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 02:36:24PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > + `restart-if-running'
> > + stop the service, and if the service was running before being
> > + stopped by restart-if-running, restart it,
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> I have a question about this part. Are we planning to assume that all
> scripts in init.d support this argument? If so, we may be in trouble
No, supporting restart-if-running is optional. And, as it's defined in
policy as optional, if something will bre
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 02:36:24PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> + `restart-if-running'
> + stop the service, and if the service was running before being
> + stopped by restart-if-running, restart it,
I have a question about this part. Are we planning to assume that
Hmm... This cold must be getting to me worse than I thought.
I've retitled the bug. This message is being sent just so that people will
actually know what was submitted at a glance ;-)
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.0
Severity: wishlist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This issue has been discussed in both debian-devel and debian-policy, and
all threads seem to have stalled. Therefore, I am submitting it to the BTS.
Should this proposal be accepted, manpage
31 matches
Mail list logo
