Hello Scott, it's not an invention of mines, and it's not crazy, as it's already implemented on other systems..... or perhaps are crazy the developers in HP. I am not talking about Debian, where it's wrong, and they are going to partially correct this behavior (as you can see from that doc). On HP-UX the number of services goes up to 1000 (instead of the usual 100), and Sxxx + Kxxx = 1000 Furthermore, using 1000 instead of 100 is smarter, otherwise, service with same number are treated in alphabetically order, and I hope this is not what we want.
On such machines you don't have tools to organize services, and the basic rule, also implemented by default on the system, is this one. This rule, just says: "what is started first, will be killed last", and when you look at the services you understand cleanly how they are organized. This rule, works without exceptions and without problems.... If in some case, you don't need to stop a service, you put no operation for the stop instance, but the Kxx must be there. I'll try to put this one in http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com as a request for a new implementation -- initscripts rules confused ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/229869 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
