On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 01:29:19PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I've tested the svn version in Debian testing, and it booted just
> fine. Had to apply a patch for Debia lenny. See other email for the
> patch.
>
> I note that we have some patches in the Debian package not yet pushed
> upstream:
>
> 10_doc_manuals.dpatch
In the inittab of an openSUSE the runlevel S is not correspond identical
to the system initialization. This because our policy points out that
no disks nor partitions or any other service should be activated by a
cold boot intio single user mode. It had been very useful in past to do
it that way but introduced a lot of work to make a switch into any
other runlevel work well ;)
> 11_doc_shutdown-c.dpatch
> 21_ifdown_kfreebsd.dpatch
> 46_pidof_symlinkman.dpatch
> 62_init_freebsdterm.dpatch
> 91_sulogin_lockedpw.dpatch
Hmmm ... if root pw is locked down the way out is a boot disk
only. Why should such a broken system exist or in an other
way why should a sysadmin disable its own maintenance job?
We may speak about a large farm of clients *with* disk with
one of the clients having a disk crash.
> 94_fstab-decode.dpatch
> 96_shutdown_acctoff.dpatch
>
> (Available from
> svn://svn.debian.org/pkg-sysvinit/sysvinit/trunk/debian/patches )
>
> Of these, I suspect 11_doc_shutdown-c.dpatch,
> 46_pidof_symlinkman.dpatch, 94_fstab-decode.dpatch and
> 96_shutdown_acctoff.dpatch might be useful to include in the new
> upstream release. What is your view on this?
The only problem might be the acctoff patch as our accton
around here behaves the old way. We may use a cpp define
for this to switch it on or off.
> There are also some freebsd fixes. I am not sure if we should include
> them upstream or not. I assume they work, but have no way to test
> them. :)
As long those changes are warped by the appropiate cpp define
all went OK :)
Werner
--
"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having
a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr
