On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:43 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant
> Edwards
>
>> # Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the
>> dependency # or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example,
>> if net.eth0 # and net.eth1 are in the default runlevel then with
>> rc_depend_strict="NO" # both will be started, but services that depend on
>> 'net' will work if either # one comes up. With rc_depend_strict="YES" we
>> would require them both to # come up.
>> #rc_depend_strict="YES"
>>
>> I had assumed that since the line setting it to YES was commented out
>> that the default was NO, and you uncommented the line to set it to
>> YES. I don't know where that belief came from, but it's wrong -- the
>> commented out line apparently shows the default.
>
> Yes, that stuff can get confusing and it's easy to get it mixed up.
I had that stuck pretty firmly in my head, so there must have been
something I was working with recently which did things the other way
'round where uncommenting lines caused behavior to change.
> The way it's done is the only really sane way - consider how it would
> play out if the setting was a value or a list of possibilities - you
> couldn't put a commented example in there that is the opposite of the
> default
True.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! It was a JOKE!!
at Get it?? I was receiving
gmail.com messages from DAVID
LETTERMAN!! !
