Dear all, Thank you for your answers.
Le 25-06-2012, à 15:21:02 +0100, Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) a écrit : > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:59:30PM +0200, Steve R. Petruzzello wrote: > > Le 25-06-2012, à 14:47:58 +0100, Roger Leigh (rle...@codelibre.net) a écrit > > : > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 01:51:36PM +0200, Steve R. Petruzzello wrote: > > > > I noticed that some scripts in /etc/init.d/ are suffixed by .sh and > > > > some are > > > > not. [...] All except console-screen.sh, hwclock.sh and keymap.sh are > > > > from > > > > the initscripts package. > > > > > > > > So 1) nowhere is .sh suffixing mentioned and 2) some scripts are not > > > > named by > > > > their package's name (hwclock.sh is part of the util-linux package). Is > > > > there > > > > a reason for this? > > > > > > Nowadays, it's essentially the case that > > > - scripts with a .sh suffix are run from rcS > > > > But not all scripts in /etc/rcS.d/ have a .sh suffix (for instance > > S09mdadm-raid). > > No, it's not a strict rule, just historic practice. If we were to > do it over today, it's unlikely we would use the suffixed names. So my question was not too stupid :) Best regards, Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120627084604.GA8811@localhost
