On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:50:28PM +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:32:55AM +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > tags 820770 + moreinfo
> > thanks
> >
> >
> > Hi Ron and Felipe,
> >
> > Hm, are #820770 and #889640 the same issue? If so, we should either
> > close them both or reopen both o
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:32:55AM +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> tags 820770 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
>
> Hi Ron and Felipe,
>
> Hm, are #820770 and #889640 the same issue? If so, we should either
> close them both or reopen both of them.
Yes, that was exactly my line of thinking when I first saw thi
tags 820770 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi Ron and Felipe,
Hm, are #820770 and #889640 the same issue? If so, we should either
close them both or reopen both of them.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:48:57PM +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> tags 889640 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > # Default-Start: S
> > # Default-Stop: 0 6
> >
> > Will cause lintian to complain about it not being stopped in runlevel 1,
> > with a rationale that would be fine for servi
tags 889640 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi Ron,
> # Default-Start: S
> # Default-Stop: 0 6
>
> Will cause lintian to complain about it not being stopped in runlevel 1,
> with a rationale that would be fine for services started in 2-5, but that
> doesn't really apply for things which can be shut
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.72
Severity: normal
And one more for today's trifecta :)
A SysV init script with:
# Default-Start: S
# Default-Stop: 0 6
Will cause lintian to complain about it not being stopped in runlevel 1,
with a rationale that would be fine for services started in
6 matches
Mail list logo
