> > Is there some other, better solution to this problem? > > echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nexit 101' > /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d \ > && chmod a+x /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d > > as mentioned by Steve Langasek in > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg01316.html>.
OK, I got to this point: if all packages used invoke-rc.d then I could solve my problem with installing packages under chroot by installing a policy-rc.d script that returned 101 if the runlevel is "unknown". All I have to do is to mask /var/run, which I already do. Two questions: 1) The command "runlevel" returns "unknown" and exits in error, will this error status do something bad to invoke-rc.d? 2) What does invoke-rc.d do if the runlevel is "unknown"? Maybe I would not have to do anything after all, if the policy was followed. Cheers, ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge L. deLyra, Associate Professor of Physics The University of Sao Paulo, IFUSP-DFMA For more information: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]