[Martín Ferrari] > Thanks for the patch! What I fear (and this is what prevented me for > solving this before) is that for LSB compilance there should be some > adherence to standards in the different actions performed (exit > codes, functions used, etc), isn't that correct? I am also lacking a > status action.
That is in my opinion a different problem. For dependency based boot sequencing, it just need the dependency information. The exit status affect other stuff, and is not the thing I worry about for Lenny. I do worry about the use of log functions because it affect the use of boot progress bars (usplash, splashy), but that is also independent of dependency based boot sequencing. > Shouldn't runlevel 1 be removed too in that case? No, because the daemon should be stopped in the single user runlevel (1) to have it started when switching away from runlevel 1 to 2-5. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
