Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 01:28:46PM +1100, An?bal Monsalve Salazar wrote: On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:27:35AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: block 341140 by 400952 thankyou Hi Anibal and Javier, I (as the new maintainer of autofs) would like to have the issue settled before Etch is released... what consequences do you fear could arise from moving the script? That's something we don't know. So, that's something we don't want to do, certainly not at this stage of the release cycle. The present situation forces all users of nisautofs to manually shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common setup... Moving autofs to start later (i.e. at 20) is probably unwise (as explained earlier), although this seems to be what most users currently do as a workaround. Maybe we should talk with the release team to get this in? If the release team approves that change we'll change portmap to start at S17 as already suggested by Javier, see #400952 [0]. What's wrong with Steinar's suggestion to change the name of the autofs script to be something between 19nis and 20apache? Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 06:28:01PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: What's wrong with Steinar's suggestion to change the name of the autofs script to be something between 19nis and 20apache? It's gross but it should work. At this late stage in the release cycle it looks like the best option. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:17:18AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote:
But IMO this solution is an ugly hack and highly counterintuitive - init
scripts are config files after all, and if I wanted to adapt a package's
initscript to my needs, I'd expect to find it at /etc/init.d/${package},
not /etc/init.d/zz${package} or the like.
You don't need to rename the /etc/init.d file, just the symlink in
/etc/rc?.d.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341140: Bug#400952: rc order of portmap,nis,autofs
This one time, at band camp, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar said: On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:27:35AM +0100, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: The present situation forces all users of nisautofs to manually shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common setup... Moving autofs to start later (i.e. at 20) is probably unwise (as explained earlier), although this seems to be what most users currently do as a workaround. Maybe we should talk with the release team to get this in? If the release team approves that change we'll change portmap to start at S17 as already suggested by Javier, see #400952 [0]. I may be missing something, but why does it need to be moved? It starts in rcS as well as rc2, so this should only ever be an issue in the rare cases when you have to switch to runlevel 1 and back, right? This seems like a rare enough occurence I'm not sure it's worth worrying about too much, but I may be missing something here. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
