[Andy Chittenden] > having had a look at /etc/init.d/nis, I see it says: > > # Provides: ypbind ypserv ypxfrd yppasswdd > > So, I thought perhaps autofs shouldn't say nis in Should-Start but > should say ypbind. Having done that and rerun insserv, the start > files look ok:
Good. Thank you for verifying the fix. :) When the dependencies are correct, the boot sequence is correct too. :) As you have seen, incorrect dependencies can be a fatal problem. :) > So, is that the right thing to do? Yes, it is the right thing to do at the moment, and if it is done, nis should keep providing ypbind until all init.d scripts currently depending on ypbind have changed their dependency to something else. > Or should nis say it provides nis as well as what it currently says > it provides or instead of? I would say that this really depend on the plans for the nis script. I've asked for the nis script to be split into several parts, one starting ypbind and another starting ypserv, ypxfrd and yppasswdd. If such split was ever done, the new scripts should provide the individual services. On the other hand, it is less surprising if all scripts provide their own name (minus the .sh ending). At least I would have avoided initially proposing the wrong dependency in this case if the nis script provided the nis service. :) Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
