Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread Nathan Coulson
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:36 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: > On 05/14/2011 04:37 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: > > Everything is covered per this conversation in SVN with the exception of > > accounting for missing /run in LightCube OS, but I think it was decided > > that it would be added. Also no ip flush (I forgo

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread DJ Lucas
On 05/15/2011 01:22 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: > On 05/15/2011 12:11 AM, Zachary Kotlarek wrote: >> Could we just do this in ifdown: >> >> if [ -x /lib/network-services/dhcp ]; then >> /lib/network-services/dhcp $interface down >> fi >> >> and assume that whatever DHCP client is ins

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread DJ Lucas
On 05/15/2011 01:39 AM, Nathan Coulson wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:36 PM, DJ Lucas > wrote: On 05/14/2011 04:37 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: > Everything is covered per this conversation in SVN with the exception of > accounting for missing /run i

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread Zachary Kotlarek
On May 15, 2011, at 2:25 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: > might actually be easier to provide a default IFCONFIG values > in each service script, and walk /lib/network-services. This make sense to me -- then it's easy to extend the same approach for arbitrary service types -- say pppoe -- which might wa

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread Bryan Kadzban
DJ Lucas wrote: > * the path for the setclock script in 55-lfs.rules needs to be > changed So... yeah. Why was this whole tree moved in the LSB scripts, again? :-) I really really hate systems where I can't reasonably tab-complete the bootscript filenames. And there's way too much junk in /etc

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Zachary Kotlarek wrote: > On May 15, 2011, at 2:25 AM, DJ Lucas wrote: >> might actually be easier to provide a default IFCONFIG values in >> each service script, and walk /lib/network-services. > > This make sense to me -- then it's easy to extend the same approach > for arbitrary service types

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread Zachary Kotlarek
On May 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > I'm trying to figure out why it'd be necessary to do this. We already > have the previous configuration of every interface stuffed away in /run, > and we use that when deciding which service scripts to call when > bringing down networking. Do

Re: Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

2011-05-15 Thread Bryan Kadzban
Zachary Kotlarek wrote: > On May 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > >> I'm trying to figure out why it'd be necessary to do this. We >> already have the previous configuration of every interface stuffed >> away in /run, and we use that when deciding which service scripts >> to call

Re: udevadm --settle

2011-05-15 Thread Bryan Kadzban
DJ Lucas wrote: > I see some traffic on linux-hotplug about this as well, so it looks like it's not LFS-specific, at least. (Arch and Debian have both had bugs reported about this.) The messages from Kay so far seem encouraging, as well. ...Oh, and I see the message from you there, too. OK, n

Re: udevadm --settle

2011-05-15 Thread DJ Lucas
On 05/16/2011 12:59 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: >> > I see some traffic on linux-hotplug about this as well, so it looks like > it's not LFS-specific, at least. (Arch and Debian have both had bugs > reported about this.) The messages from Kay so far seem encouraging, as > well. >