[Andreas Barth]
> Hi Petter,
Hi, and sorry for the late reply. With a kid in the house, I have so
little free time to spend on Debian, and ended up focusing on trying
to fix the issues you brought up instead of spending the time to write
a proper reply to you first.
> I appreciate that you're wo
Hi Holger,
Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 31. August 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
>> By the way, piuparts may help breaking some init scripts, see:
>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/init.d-script-sourcing-without-test.html
>> :)
>
> I dont understand, can you please explain how piuparts
Hi Raphael,
On Montag, 31. August 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Here's the first set of new checks: #544221 more will follow, and some
> others that can't be implemented in lintian are already being performed by
> some scripts written by Petter.
nice!
> By the way, piuparts may help breaking s
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Montag, 24. August 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> The difference is that now many tests can be performed and the
>> bugs fixed;
>
> If this is true, and I believe it is, I will buy you a $beer next time we
> meet - and remember :-)
Heh, thanks :)
Here's the
* Tollef Fog Heen:
> I don't see anything in section 3 that makes it a bug for file-rc to
> update its own configuration file, as long as the admin's changes are kept?
Why can't file-rc use the correct order and warn if the configuration
file order is wrong?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Bernd Zeimetz writes:
>>> - it was never properly discussed and accepted before. If we switch to
>>> a dependency based boot system, why to this mess from SuSE called
>>> insserv?
>> There was a *ton* of discussion of insserv across multiple mailin
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Steve Langasek writes:
>>
>> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
>> to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>> recommends would do the jo
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz writes:
>
>> - it was never properly discussed and accepted before. If we switch to a
>> dependency based boot system, why to this mess from SuSE called insserv?
>
> There was a *ton* of discussion of insserv across multiple mailing lists
> over a period of at
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090827 21:05]:
> (I think I'm missing your point here, since you started quoting the RC
> policy at me essentially retelling me the same thing I said in my first
> message, and now you're doing it again.)
Sorry. If I think you're wrong, I would have pointed it ou
]] Andreas Barth
| * Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090826 16:12]:
| > ]] Andreas Barth
|
| > | Our release policy tells in
| > | http://release.debian.org/squeeze/rc_policy.txt (please note the
| > | difference between conffiles and configuration files)
| >
| > I don't see anything in secti
Frans Pop wrote:
> I'm no fan of insserv (I have the new sysv-rc on hold on all my systems
> running unstable until this gets sorted out)
I also have put the new sysv-rc on hold on all my systems.
I'm fully convinced that a dependency boot system is, for most cases,
better than the current one. H
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090826 16:12]:
> ]] Andreas Barth
> | Our release policy tells in
> | http://release.debian.org/squeeze/rc_policy.txt (please note the
> | difference between conffiles and configuration files)
>
> I don't see anything in section 3 that makes it a bug for file-r
]] Andreas Barth
| * Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090826 08:59]:
| > ]] Alexander Wirt
| >
| > | Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
| > |
| > | *snip*
| > | > Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
| > |
| > | you know what file-rc is doing? You h
(Put petter on CC, he's probably interested by the patch below)
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
>
> *snip*
> > Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
> you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile
* Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) [090826 08:59]:
> ]] Alexander Wirt
>
> | Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
> |
> | *snip*
> | > Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
> |
> | you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile where you list
> | y
]] Alexander Wirt
| Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
|
| *snip*
| > Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
|
| you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile where you list
| your services and the bootlevels. So we have a configfile here. I
| w
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:37:34AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in question.
>
> If people aren't willing to provide those patches, then that evidently means
> that supporting the downgrade path is non-trivial, in which case I think
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:37:09PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > What is broken with the usage of update-rc.d or the debconf switch?
> a) in my eyes low is the wrong priority as it changes vital system setting
> without further notice. Also a NEWS item would be useful. Another problem is
> that
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:45:03PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >Steve Langasek writes:
> >
> >There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
> >to allow other configurations to live on - just movi
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:
> >> How is calling update-rc.d making our maintainer scripts fragile?
> > It's the things that update-rc.d doesn't support directly that are a
> > problem, like moving start numbers.
>
>
Russ Allbery writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:
>> How is calling update-rc.d making our maintainer scripts fragile?
> It's the things that update-rc.d doesn't support directly that are a
> problem, like moving start numbers.
True, but just using insserv will not fix this problem. As long
Hi Luk!
* Luk Claes [2009-08-24 19:42]:
> There is no reason to use insserv on embedded systems, though if you do,
> you could create the image somewhere else on a fast machine and don't
> have the draw backs of time-consuming resolving dependencies AFAICS?
If insserv breakes all other options
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:57:35AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> - it was never properly discussed and accepted before. If we switch to a
> dependency based boot system, why to this mess from SuSE called insserv? Why
> don't I have the choice to stay with the old sys-rc way, as this is clearly
>
Hi,
On Montag, 24. August 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> The difference is that now many tests can be performed and the
> bugs fixed;
If this is true, and I believe it is, I will buy you a $beer next time we
meet - and remember :-)
Thanks.
convinced,
Holger
P.S.: always questioning
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>>> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not
>>> hard to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>>> recommends woul
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> - it was never properly discussed and accepted before. If we switch to a
> dependency based boot system, why to this mess from SuSE called insserv?
There was a *ton* of discussion of insserv across multiple mailing lists
over a period of at least months and I think years.
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> I'm not saying this kind of bug will occur; indeed, given that Petter
> has been working on this for a long time, I would be surprised if there
> were many such bugs in Debian.
>
> However, we cannot be sure whether this is or is not the case until
> we've tried; and in
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
>> to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>> recommends would do the job! We have supported regular
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
> to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
> recommends would do the job! We have supported regular sysv-rc and
> file-rc for ye
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:34:42PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>Steve Langasek writes:
>
>There is no good reason to break non-insserv setups, and it is not hard
>to allow other configurations to live on - just moving insserv to
>recommends would do the job! We have supported regular sysv
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:38:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
>> our users nor our developers at large considers that a feature, but
>> rather a very grave bug.
> I don't presume to know what the maj
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [090824 20:51]:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:34:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency
> > > from sysv-rc on insserv. T
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 20:34]:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > It's perfectly possible to make it the defaul
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:34:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > The most vital bug that needs to be fixed currently is the new dependency
> > from sysv-rc on insserv. The patch to fix this is trivial. (I'm
> > refraining to open a
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:41:27PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > Because several people prefere to use file-rc for various reasons, e.g.
> > on embedded systems. Therefore it is essential that insserv can be
> > purged without running into such bugs.
>
> AFAIK embedded syste
Luk Claes schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
*snip*
> Why would file-rc not work properly with dependency based booting?
you know what file-rc is doing? You have a configfile where you list your
services and the bootlevels. So we have a configfile here. I would have to
reorder the whole file
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:43:25PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Martin Wuertele wrote:
> > It's easy to maintain, it doesn't require a bunch of symlinks like
> > sysv-rc nor does it require the magic of insserv, it is easy to change
> > the order in which services are started without time-consuming re
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:54:04PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >> Well, both are deterministic but they do not decide of the ordering in the
> >> same way and it's just easier for our brains to represent a n
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:03:59PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the
> > > only supported option.
> > I
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090824 19:38]:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the
> > only supported option.
>
> I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in questi
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> With dependency based ordering, you just state the dependencies and you
>> let it figure out the order.
>>
>>> There are advantages to dependency-based boot sys
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 07:47:52PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> For (semi-)essential packages there is no guarantee that removing will
> be easy. I know of quite some essential packages that are not easy to
> remove at all.
> Switching away from sysv-rc is apparently possible as Phil is using
> upst
On 2009-08-24 19:47 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Switching away from sysv-rc is apparently possible as Phil is using
> upstart with insserv.
This means switching away from sysvinit, but not from sysv-rc; upstart
conflicts with the former, but depends on the latter.
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
>
> *snip*
>
>> So please point us to bugs related to breakages on upgrades (there have
>> been some I know, but I think Petter dealt with them correctly) if you
>> want to use that argument to not switch to insserv b
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>> #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
>>> been removed.
>> [...]
>>> #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
>>> it should be.
>> (which you later said it should be #511753)
>>
>> These tw
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> Hi Steve!
>
> * Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 10:03]:
>
>> The main thing I know about file-rc is that it's a corner case that further
>> breaks upgrade handling when packages need to renumber their symlinks in
>> /etc/rc?.d. I know "embedded" is often used as a catch-all
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> Hi Steve!
>
> * Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 09:19]:
>
>> So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
>> bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
>> problems with the new system, why do we need to support downgra
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's perfectly possible to make it the default *without* making it the
> only supported option.
I'm sure the maintainers would welcome patches to fix the bugs in question.
If people aren't willing to provide those patches, then th
On Monday 24 August 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> When was it uploaded to experimental?
> When was there a call to test the new things while they're in
> experimental? This is NOT the way really important parts of Debian
> should be maintained.
I'm no fan of insserv (I have the new sysv-rc on hold
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 03:34:51PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > No, decimal numbers are the superior design here as they just work without
> > any
> > magic. One of the reasons I migrated away from SuSE long time ago was the
> > mess
> > called ins
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> No, decimal numbers are the superior design here as they just work without
>> any
>> magic. One of the reasons I migrated away from SuSE long time ago was the
>> mess
>> called insserv...
>
> There are reports of init script n
On 2009-08-24, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you
>>> get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'.
>> Yes. upstart conf
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
>> I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you
>> get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'.
>
> Yes. upstart conflicts with the essential sysvinit pac
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Monday, den 24. August 2009:
*snip*
> So please point us to bugs related to breakages on upgrades (there have
> been some I know, but I think Petter dealt with them correctly) if you
> want to use that argument to not switch to insserv by default. The
> current bugs tha
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No, decimal numbers are the superior design here as they just work without any
> magic. One of the reasons I migrated away from SuSE long time ago was the mess
> called insserv...
There are reports of init script not working because they rely on some
oth
Hi,
the subject basically says it: why is this thread not on -devel? AFAICS this
is a technical discussion, while -project is for non-technical discussions?
/me wonders if Andreas had a reason for this or if this is just what I
described in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/08/msg0030
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:22:28 +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I wonder if it was always the case that when you switch to upstart you
> get to say 'Yes, I know I'll break my system, dpkg, please do it anyway.'.
Yes. upstart conflicts with the essential sysvinit package…
Cheers,
Julien
--
To U
On 2009-08-24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That's granted but it's easier to say from your place instead of petter's
> place... I for one appreciate the work that he has put in all this and
> I would highly prefer that you help him instead of complaining about his
> work.
*sigh* If we all had the t
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [090824 08:54]:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
> > the time being.
>
> Until what?
Until we know that the new method really works 100% correct, people
enjoy the switch an
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
> > the time being.
>
> Until what? Missing boot-time dependencies were the only problem that had
> to be adressed
Hi Giacomo!
* Giacomo A. Catenazzi [2009-08-24 11:33]:
> BTW the "resolving dependencies" is done at installation/update time, not at
> every boot.
You're right. I should time the calculation on those ~200 MHz low-ram boxes
- I don't expect this to be reasonably fast tough.
Yours Martin
--
Martin Wuertele wrote:
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 10:03]:
The main thing I know about file-rc is that it's a corner case that further
breaks upgrade handling when packages need to renumber their symlinks in
/etc/rc?.d. I know "embedded" is often used as a catch-all to describe al
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Andreas Barth
>
> | Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> | from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> |
> | And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
> | our users nor our developers at large considers that a feat
Steve Langasek wrote:
>> We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
>> the time being.
>
> Why?
>
> So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
> bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
> problems with the n
Hi, Tollef:
On Monday 24 August 2009 10:27:07 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Andreas Barth
>
> | Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> | from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> |
> | And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
> | our users nor o
Hi, Steve:
On Monday 24 August 2009 09:19:28 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:38:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
[...]
> > Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> > from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> >
> > And that is a statement that I heavily
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
>> the time being.
>
> Until what? Missing boot-time dependencies were the only problem that had
> to be adressed to fix boot sequence ordering.
>
> Sure ad
Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
>> been removed.
> [...]
>> #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
>> it should be.
> (which you later said it should be #511753)
>
> These two only seem to occur when inss
Hi Tollef!
* Tollef Fog Heen [2009-08-24 10:27]:
> ]] Andreas Barth
>
> | Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
> | from insserv to oldstyle booting".
> |
> | And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
> | our users nor our developers a
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 10:03]:
> The main thing I know about file-rc is that it's a corner case that further
> breaks upgrade handling when packages need to renumber their symlinks in
> /etc/rc?.d. I know "embedded" is often used as a catch-all to describe all
> kinds of crackfu
]] Andreas Barth
| Eh. This translates to: "it is ok that the admin cannot switch back
| from insserv to oldstyle booting".
|
| And that is a statement that I heavily disagree with. I think neither
| our users nor our developers at large considers that a feature, but
| rather a very grave bug.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 09:52:03AM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 09:19]:
> > So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
> > bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
> > problems with the new system, why d
Hi Steve!
* Steve Langasek [2009-08-24 09:19]:
> So far, the only bugs that have been highlighted in this thread appear to be
> bugs that happen when trying to remove insserv. If there aren't any
> problems with the new system, why do we need to support downgrading?
Because several people pref
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:38:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
> > > been removed.
> > [...]
> > > #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
> > > it should be.
> > (which you later said it should
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> We should definitly continue to support oldstyle booting, at least for
> the time being.
Until what? Missing boot-time dependencies were the only problem that had
to be adressed to fix boot sequence ordering.
Sure administrators will have to learn tweak
* Raphael Geissert (geiss...@debian.org) [090824 00:34]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > The local admin doesn't have any
> > choice. I need to admit that I disagree with this change at this
> > time.
> > #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horribly if an init script has
> > been removed.
> [...]
Hi Andreas,
Although I'm not Petter I think I can make some comments.
Andreas Barth wrote:
> The local admin doesn't have any
> choice. I need to admit that I disagree with this change at this
> time.
>
> Please let me point out a few issues:
>
>
> #475478 insserv: uninstallation fails horr
* Andreas Barth (a...@not.so.argh.org) [090823 10:40]:
> #538959 needs actually to be worked on. The current state is not how
That should read: #511753
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@
Hi Petter,
I appreciate that you're working on improving the experience of our
users during startup, e.g. by adding dependency information to the
init scripts. I think that will in the long run be good for Debians
users.
However you recently added the dependency on insserv to
sysvinit-utils. By
79 matches
Mail list logo
