On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:04:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Renaming init script links, for which we have no adequate tool and which
> is not an easily reversible process because nothing remembers what the
> init script links were originally and what runlevels they were enabled
> in. T
Le samedi 04 avril 2009 à 22:23 +1000, Kel Modderman a écrit :
> An interface for disabling/enabling system boot scripts has been proposed
> and committed [1] and also made available for dependency based boot [2].
>
> These changes may need to be discussed further now though, as Steve Langasek
> s
On Thursday 02 April 2009 01:03:27 Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently we seem to have no clear policy in Debian how to handle
> the question: "Shall a service started once its installed or not?"
> The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
> installed, some do
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Indeed. Didn't think about the possibility of diversions. I guess
> > > diverting the init scripts could be a solution (besides that it needs
> > > some furthe
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Indeed. Didn't think about the possibility of diversions. I guess
> > diverting the init scripts could be a solution (besides that it needs
> > some further work to the service managing utility). Then I'd
> > whole-heartedly agree
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:07:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
> > > > Right Thing
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:21:47PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > That said, if the runlevel editor is appropriately integrated with the
> > system, it doesn't have to limit itself to waiting for the service to be
> > installed before setting a policy for the service. The editor could diver
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> ACK. What speaks against 'service'? :)
> If we use the name 'service', please also make it handle service
> starting/stopping, which is what the program of the same name is
> traditionally used for on
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
> > > Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
> > > think i
Hi there!
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:11:14 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu,02.Apr.09, 13:12:25, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > > I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
>> > > Right Thing To Do, but
On Thu,02.Apr.09, 13:12:25, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
> > > Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
> > > think it would be a g
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:51:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:56:43PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > > I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
>
> > > 1.) There i
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
> > Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
> > think it would be a great solution if update-rc.d gained the following
> > features
Le mercredi 01 avril 2009 à 18:05 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> I think this should be a separate program, reserving update-rc.d for
> maintainer script use. But please, not 'chkconfig', which is an entirely
> unintuitive name. :)
Apart from the name which sucks, it definitely sounds like the
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:04:10 -0700, Russ Allbery
wrote:
>* Using policy-rc.d, which is at least underdocumented. I've used Debian
> for a long time and I still have difficulty figuring out just what I'm
> supposed to put where to disable a specific init script for a specific
> service using th
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:54:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:38:46PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Well, its only about *new* services after installation. The intention
> > behind that is that some people don't like to run un- or half-configured
> > daemons im
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:39:34PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > the question: "Shall a service started once its installed or not?"
> > The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
> > installed, some d
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
> 1.) There is already a documented interface, how to disable a service (i.e.
> renaming the S?? symlinks for that runlevel to K??). Adding another layer to
> do
> this is
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 03:04:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Using policy-rc.d, which is at least underdocumented. I've used Debian
> for a long time and I still have difficulty figuring out just what I'm
> supposed to put where to disable a specific init script for a specific
> service
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> We also don't seem to have a clear consense how to disable/temporarily
> deactivate services. The current situation is that some packages include
> a file in /etc/default with a variable "RUN", "RUN_",
> "START_ON_BOOT" or even a
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:38:46PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Well, its only about *new* services after installation. The intention
> behind that is that some people don't like to run un- or half-configured
> daemons immediately after installing them.
It's Debian policy that packages shoul
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:39:34 +0200, Adam Borowski
wrote:
>If a service shouldn't be run, there is a good command to disable it:
>dpkg --remove
My notebook has a big number of server packages installed with
services disabled for the sake of documentation.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:03:07PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> It feels to me like we're all kind of ignoring the current mechanism for
> enabling and disabling services that we already have.
>
> It might be useful in this conversation to seperate out two different
> ideas:
yeah, i think these t
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> the question: "Shall a service started once its installed or not?" The
>> current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
>> installed, some don't, because they don't have a reasonabl
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:03:27PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> the question: "Shall a service started once its installed or not?"
> The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
> installed, some don't, because they don't have a reasonable default
> configuration and
This one time, at band camp, Frans Pop said:
> Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > * RUN_NEW_SERVICES_AFTER_INSTALL=
>
> I dislike the semantics of this because it does not allow for the case
> where for whatever reason (e.g. new system install) you have to reboot
> shortly after installing a package
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
>>
>> 1.) There is already a documented interface, how to disable a service (i.e.
>> renaming the S?? symlinks for that runlevel to K??
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> * RUN_NEW_SERVICES_AFTER_INSTALL=
I dislike the semantics of this because it does not allow for the case
where for whatever reason (e.g. new system install) you have to reboot
shortly after installing a package before you had a chance to
review/change the configurati
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 21:02 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
> Is dislike that format, because users are already used to the RUN_*
> system and additional people changing from another distribution or even
> operating system will notice similarities, which is good as well.
RUN_* variables make i
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 09:50:47PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ke, 2009-04-01 kello 20:30 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
> > You finished reading my mail after that paragraph, didn't you? ;)
>
> Pretty much. It looked long and complicated and I was in a hurry. I
> skimmed it but I se
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I don't like this idea of RUN=yes variables in /etc/default.
>
> 1.) There is already a documented interface, how to disable a service (i.e.
> renaming the S?? symlinks for that runlevel to K??). Adding another layer to
> do
>
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 20:30 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
> You finished reading my mail after that paragraph, didn't you? ;)
Pretty much. It looked long and complicated and I was in a hurry. I
skimmed it but I see now I missed that you actually knew about
policy-rc.d.
Let me make amends by
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 05:38:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 01 avril 2009 à 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
> > * We add a new configuration file (possibly /etc/rc.conf because thats
> > a file that exists in different distributions and has a similar meaning)
> > w
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:31:04PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ke, 2009-04-01 kello 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
> > There are clear disadvantages with this:
> > - The administrator has no way to influence the decision weither
> > a service shall run directly after installation.
>
Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> Hi,
>
> currently we seem to have no clear policy in Debian how to handle
> the question: "Shall a service started once its installed or not?"
> The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
> installed, some don't, because they don't have a reas
Le mercredi 01 avril 2009 à 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
> * We add a new configuration file (possibly /etc/rc.conf because thats
> a file that exists in different distributions and has a similar meaning)
> which can have the following configuration settings:
>
>* RUN_NEW_SERV
ke, 2009-04-01 kello 17:03 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld kirjoitti:
> There are clear disadvantages with this:
> - The administrator has no way to influence the decision weither
> a service shall run directly after installation.
> - The administrator needs to apply and know about several different
> wa
Hi,
currently we seem to have no clear policy in Debian how to handle
the question: "Shall a service started once its installed or not?"
The current state of affairs is that some packages start after beeing
installed, some don't, because they don't have a reasonable default
configuration and some
38 matches
Mail list logo
