Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.8.0
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Please consider changing the language in chapter 9.3.3
"Interfacing with the initscript system" from "should" to "must".
Interpretting it as a strict requirement has been the way I've
understood most people to look at it fo
It might not be the policy's place to define how the maintainer should
automate the packaging work, but at least mention debhelper to not
fool people into thinking manually writing maintainer scripts is
the preferred method of using update-rc.d.
---
policy.sgml | 8
1 file chang
These days the information in the LSB header is used.
Manually specifying/overriding runlevels as a parameter to
update-rc.d on command line is even deprecated and a noop stub
these days.
---
policy.sgml | 13 -
1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
These days the information in the LSB header is used.
Manually specifying/overriding runlevels as a parameter to
update-rc.d on command line is even deprecated and a noop stub
these days.
---
policy.sgml | 13 -
1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
It might not be the policys place to define how the maintainer should
automate the packaging work, but atleast mention debhelper to not
fool people into thinking manually writing maintainer scripts is
the preferred method of using update-rc.d.
---
policy.sgml | 8
1 file changed, 8
Your message dated Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:01:21 -0300
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#379001: debian-policy: update-rc.d overrides sysadmins
wishes
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wi
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> The policy says that postinst should run "update-rc.d ... defaults",
> however this means that symlinks are reverted back upon all upgrades.
>
> I have a large number of packages installed for testing, but I do not
> want the
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> The policy says that postinst should run "update-rc.d ... defaults",
> however this means that symlinks are reverted back upon all upgrades.
No, only
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: wishlist
The policy says that postinst should run "update-rc.d ... defaults",
however this means that symlinks are reverted back upon all upgrades.
I have a large number of packages installed for testing, but I do not
want them started
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaSun Aug 3 12:54:26 MDT 2003
Modified files:
debian : changelog
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
* invoke-rc.d and update-rc.d are now in the sysv-rc package
id 46032636A4; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:47:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: by zuul.progeny.com (Postfix, from userid 10001)
id 28EAABD; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:47:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [BUG] section 10.3.3 does not provide enough guidance for package
maintainers to use update-rc.d correctly
From: &q
CVSROOT:/cvs/debian-policy
Module name:debian-policy
Changes by: srivastaTue Sep 10 22:54:00 MDT 2002
Modified files:
. : policy.sgml
Log message:
Update update-rc.d examples. Mention that one may need to remove and
recreate the links if the
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 2) The examples advise people to redirect the output of update-rc.d to
> > /dev/null. Adam Heath and I feel this is a bad idea, and even if this
> > change is not made, some people (like
Previously Branden Robinson wrote:
> 2) The examples advise people to redirect the output of update-rc.d to
> /dev/null. Adam Heath and I feel this is a bad idea, and even if this
> change is not made, some people (like the author of lintian; see Bug
> #149700) think that this is no
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: normal
A couple of points regarding policy 10.3.3 ("Managing the links"):
1) The policy does not mention that if your package changes its
runlevels or priority, that "update-rc.d package remove" MUST be called,
or update
Debian))
id 128vHY-0005Zp-00; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:12:04 +
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 01:12:04 +
From: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian bug reports <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PROPOSAL] clarify update-rc.d stuff
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version
seconded
> Well, it seems that my update-rc.d clarifications were confusing. So
> here is an attempt to clean up the wording in section 3.3.1 of
> policy. There is no intended change of meaning, but it clarifies that
> we are only talking about maintainer scripts and not human
>
Subject: Re: Bug#55048: [PROPOSAL] clarify update-rc.d stuff
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Julian Gilbey on Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at
01:12:04AM +
I like the change -- I remember wondering if *I* as an admin should use
update-rc.d or if things would break if I didn
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.1.1.1
Well, it seems that my update-rc.d clarifications were confusing. So
here is an attempt to clean up the wording in section 3.3.1 of
policy. There is no intended change of meaning, but it clarifies that
we are only talking about maintainer scripts and not
> + There are at least two different, yet functionally equivalent,
> + ways of handling these scripts. For the sake of simplicity,
> + this document describes only the symbolic link method.
> + However, it may not be assumed that this method is being used,
> +
proposal is to clean it up so it does make sense, and moreover so
> > it emphasizes that update-rc.d is the only thing that should be
> > used to register init scripts.
>
> I second this proposal too, on the grounds that it mainly clarifies
> existing practice, a
it up so it does make sense, and moreover so
> it emphasizes that update-rc.d is the only thing that should be
> used to register init scripts.
I second this proposal too, on the grounds that it mainly clarifies
existing practice, and where it doesn't it improves compatability amon
Something I have done and seen done is to either
a) add exit 0 right after start) and add a force-start which runs anyway
b) place a file somewhere (maybe in /etc/init.d called NO_
Hi,
I'd like to raise a couple of suggestions for update-rc.d.
First, there are some problems that currently affect startup scripts:
* It's not obvious how to go about disabling /etc/init.d
scripts from running correctly.
(update-rc.d remove doesn'
On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 08:40:43AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> In the case of the lpd and lprng packages, both of them provide
> /usr/sbin/lpd and test for its existance in their startup script. So if
> you install lpd, remove it and then install lprng, /usr/sbin/lpd get
> started twice at boo
On 2 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Of course, a well written init.d file is a no-op when the
> package itself is removed, so it does no harm to retain the file to
> keep configuration values ...
>
> If, for some packages, that is not the case, bugs should be
> filed
Hi,
Of course, a well written init.d file is a no-op when the
package itself is removed, so it does no harm to retain the file to
keep configuration values ...
If, for some packages, that is not the case, bugs should be
filed against the errant packages.
manoj
--
Out
On Monday, March 02, Sven Rudolph wrote
>
> Does anyone remember why the policy doesn't require `update-rc.d
> remove' when the package is being removed?
Because the files under /etc/init.d are conffiles... just like other
conffiles, we want to leave them there so that the use
Policy 3.4.3:
To get the default behaviour for your package, put in your `postinst'
script
update-rc.d default >/dev/null
and in your `postrm'
if [ purge = "$1" ]; then
update-rc.d remove >/dev/null
29 matches
Mail list logo
