On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:56:14AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 01:34:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts'
standard output (and exit
On Wed, 4 May 2005 09:45:14 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:56:14AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Additionally, it is bad that on systems which neither have a serial
console nor a monitor attached init script output is inaccessible.
False. See
Marc Haber wrote:
The bootlogd docs strongly suggest not using it.
Out of curiosity, where? I checked /usr/share/doc/sysvinit,
/usr/share/doc/initscripts, and bootlogd(8). The only thing I found was
a warning about parsing the kernel's command line in the manpage.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, 03 May 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
One concern I'd have is that using the LSB functions is (at least
somewhat) lintian-testable, whereas the standard for stdout/stderr usage
would be much more difficult to test in a lintian/linda sort of way.
Making widespread changes happen that are
On Wed, 04 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts'
standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way that
bootup messages were prettier.
That sounds like an ugly and error-prone hack to me. Not something we
want
On Wed, 04 May 2005 06:25:14 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc Haber wrote:
The bootlogd docs strongly suggest not using it.
Out of curiosity, where?
I didn't find that information, so I'll have to retract my statement.
However, bug #217582 suggests that there still are
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:25:31AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts'
standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way that
bootup messages were
Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]:
I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
that they are a bad idea.
It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it
will be a net gain.
* Converting to lsb init function requires
On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]:
I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
that they are a bad idea.
It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it
will be a net
I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
that they are a bad idea.
* Converting to lsb init function requires modifying every initscript in
Debian.
* Every initscript has to read in a file containing a set of function
definitions, some/most of which the initscript
On Wed, 04 May 2005, Thomas Hood wrote:
I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
that they are a bad idea.
Here's how I thought about doing it when I was mucking around with
invoke-rc.d and the initscripts paper:
1. No shell functions at all. Trap stdout and
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
that they are a bad idea.
* Converting to lsb init function requires modifying every initscript in
Debian.
Well, d'oh.
* Every initscript has to read in a
On May 04, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way that
bootup messages were prettier.
That sounds like an ugly and error-prone hack to me. Not something we
want one of our most important systems to be working with.
Agreed. I
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's how I thought about doing it when I was mucking around with
invoke-rc.d and the initscripts paper:
1. No shell functions at all. Trap stdout and stderr, and parse that.
2. Group all output from a single initscript if possible
3.
On Wed, 4 May 2005 01:34:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
I think it would be better if we simply made rc capture initscripts'
standard output (and exit status) and formatted it in such a way that
bootup messages
Le Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:06:19 -0600, Ron Johnson a écrit :
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 06:31 +0200, Alban Browaeys wrote:
Le Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:09:55 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
For the record, it is not true that there
Op di, 29-03-2005 te 01:09 +0200, schreef Jeroen van Wolffelaar:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
For the record, it is not true that there is no logging of initscripts.
The logging is perhaps not enabled by default and it is perhaps not
detailed to the
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:46:53AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
- there is no logging of init scripts (#169600) startup, so it's difficult
to determine (post-boot) if all the system's elements started up correctly.
For the record, it is not true that there is no logging of
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:46:53AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
- there is no logging of init scripts (#169600) startup, so it's difficult
to determine (post-boot) if all the system's elements started up
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
For the record, it is not true that there is no logging of initscripts.
The logging is perhaps not enabled by default and it is perhaps not
detailed to the extent as suggested in the bugreport, but by running
echo
On Mar 29, Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one can enable initscript logging to /var/log/boot, which will show
everything that was sent to the console during bootup (excluding kernel
messages).
*blink*, wow... why isn't this like on by default, and the package in
question
Le Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:09:55 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
For the record, it is not true that there is no logging of initscripts.
The logging is perhaps not enabled by default and it is perhaps not
detailed to the
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 06:31 +0200, Alban Browaeys wrote:
Le Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:09:55 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:24:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
For the record, it is not true that there is no logging of initscripts.
The logging is perhaps not
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 06:55:26PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Thomas Hood wrote:
Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?
Where can we find these functions?
Judging from the changelog excerpt in the initial post to this thread,
you can find them in lsb-base version 2.0-6 in
Hi!
Thomas Hood [2005-03-26 10:02 +0100]:
Changes:
lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Create lsb package in binary-indep step. (Closes: #297788)
* Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu.
* Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-base package; this
Changes:
lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Create lsb package in binary-indep step. (Closes: #297788)
* Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu.
* Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-base package; this
functionality is thus available for use by other,
On Mar 26, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?
Post-sarge I'm probably going to try with my packages.
It would probably be best if this were decided at the project level.
Yes, but it looks hard. Also, policy should reflect packaging practices,
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Changes:
lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Create lsb package in binary-indep step. (Closes: #297788)
* Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu.
* Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-base
Thomas Hood wrote:
Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?
Where can we find these functions?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
29 matches
Mail list logo
