>>"Henrique" == Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henrique> I propose (informally) that we try to go to 'should' when
Henrique> we hit something like 50% of the affected packages
Henrique> converted, and 'must' when we hit 90%.
Agreed. I hereby volunteer you to keep track
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> How about this psuedo diff (I made the second paragraph a
> footnote, and hence informative rather than normative). When we have
> better compliance, we can switch to a should, and then a must,
> directive.
Ok.
I propose (informally) that w
Hi,
How about this psuedo diff (I made the second paragraph a
footnote, and hence informative rather than normative). When we have
better compliance, we can switch to a should, and then a must,
directive.
manoj
diff -u policy.text policy.text
--- policy.text
+++ polic
On Mon 06 Nov 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > I can think of a situation where a package may have more than
> > one daemon, and upon upgrading only one of those daemon must
> > be restarted. Calling the init.d script with the parameters
> > "restart daemonname" might be a very useful solution
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Paul Slootman wrote:
> Nowhere in policy do I see that it is forbidden to pass extra
> parameters. However, your invoke-rc.d does in fact explicitly
> forbid it (it prints an error and exits with 103).
You're right. I'll change the interface and implementation for invoke-rc.d.
On Fri 03 Nov 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> Proposed script interfaces (to be rewritten as manpages):
>
> invoke-rc.d [options]
> *) case ${state} in
> I) INITSCRIPTID=$i
> ;;
> II) ACTION=$i
> ;;
>
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> packages buggy''. Indeeed, anything like this should probably be
> introduced as a recommendation; and non-compliance should be deemed a
I will change the proposal to recommend the use of invoke-rc.d, and add a
warning that 'in the future' usage of
Hi,
Umm, there is a little matter of transition planning. The
policy diff, as presented in this proposal, makes it an rc bug for
any package not using this current nonexistent mechanism, and as such
fails ``new policy should not immediately make a large number of
packages buggy''. Inde
Attached, you'll find the revised invoke-rc.d executable for sysvinit,
policy change proposal and interface specs for invoke-rc.d and policy-rc.d.
Changelog:
* `maybe-restart' renamed to `restart-if-running';
* Fallback action for `restart' attempted out-of-runlevel
is now `restart-if-runn
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Mark Rahner wrote:
> > I'm just a lurker (at this point) and I'm not out to make work for anyone so
> > take my comments for what they're worth. In answer to your question, I'm a
> > big
> > fan of extreme cl
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> I absolutely don't understand why you want to introduce a "maybe" restart
> instead of sanely defining the semantics of the "existing" restart and
> correctly implementing it.
Because redefining restart is not possible in practice. It is as simp
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Mark Rahner wrote:
> I'm just a lurker (at this point) and I'm not out to make work for anyone so
> take my comments for what they're worth. In answer to your question, I'm a
> big
> fan of extreme clarity. I think the three extra characters are well wor
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Mark Rahner wrote:
> > Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > > maybe-restart means exectly that: restart only if currently running.
> >
> > I had been wondering about this. It's a shame this isn't called
> > restart-if-running.
I ab
Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> [-policy added to CC: list]
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Mark Rahner wrote:
> > Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > > maybe-restart means exectly that: restart only if currently running.
> >
> > I had been wondering about this. It's a shame this isn't called
> > restart-if-run
[-policy added to CC: list]
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Mark Rahner wrote:
> Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> > maybe-restart means exectly that: restart only if currently running.
>
> I had been wondering about this. It's a shame this isn't called
> restart-if-running.
Well, I am not the author of 'maybe
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:10:13AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Generally very nice (haven't read the actual scripts yet...). I definitely
> approve.
>
> I've one question/concern/objection, though. In your diff of 3.3.3.2, you
> have:
>
>
> > + By default, `invoke-rc.d' will pass any act
Gah. Do we have to keep cross-posting threads to multiple lists?
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:03:17AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > + `update-rc.d' and the system administrator. Also, requests to
> > > restart a
> > > + service out of
On 31-Oct-00, 21:03 (CST), Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd prefer to get this whole invoke-rc.d deal into policy with an optional
> maybe-restart first to fix the worst mess. After it's in policy, any
> developer can propose changing maybe-restart to non-optional and we can ha
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > + `update-rc.d' and the system administrator. Also, requests to restart
> > a
> > + service out of its intended runlevels are changed to a stop request.
>
> The last sentence causes a problem in the following (contrived?)
> scenario.
>
> 1.
Generally very nice (haven't read the actual scripts yet...). I definitely
approve.
I've one question/concern/objection, though. In your diff of 3.3.3.2, you
have:
> + By default, `invoke-rc.d' will pass any action requests (start, stop,
> + reload, restart...) to the /etc/init.d script,
20 matches
Mail list logo
