On Fri 03 Nov 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
Proposed script interfaces (to be rewritten as manpages):
invoke-rc.d [options] basename action
*) case ${state} in
I) INITSCRIPTID=$i
;;
II) ACTION=$i
;;
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Paul Slootman wrote:
Nowhere in policy do I see that it is forbidden to pass extra
parameters. However, your invoke-rc.d does in fact explicitly
forbid it (it prints an error and exits with 103).
You're right. I'll change the interface and implementation for invoke-rc.d.
On Mon 06 Nov 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
I can think of a situation where a package may have more than
one daemon, and upon upgrading only one of those daemon must
be restarted. Calling the init.d script with the parameters
restart daemonname might be a very useful solution, one
Hi,
How about this psuedo diff (I made the second paragraph a
footnote, and hence informative rather than normative). When we have
better compliance, we can switch to a should, and then a must,
directive.
manoj
diff -u policy.text policy.text
--- policy.text
+++
On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
How about this psuedo diff (I made the second paragraph a
footnote, and hence informative rather than normative). When we have
better compliance, we can switch to a should, and then a must,
directive.
Ok.
I propose (informally) that we
Henrique == Henrique M Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henrique I propose (informally) that we try to go to 'should' when
Henrique we hit something like 50% of the affected packages
Henrique converted, and 'must' when we hit 90%.
Agreed. I hereby volunteer you to keep track ;-)
Hi,
Umm, there is a little matter of transition planning. The
policy diff, as presented in this proposal, makes it an rc bug for
any package not using this current nonexistent mechanism, and as such
fails ``new policy should not immediately make a large number of
packages buggy''.
On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
packages buggy''. Indeeed, anything like this should probably be
introduced as a recommendation; and non-compliance should be deemed a
I will change the proposal to recommend the use of invoke-rc.d, and add a
warning that 'in the future' usage of
Attached, you'll find the revised invoke-rc.d executable for sysvinit,
policy change proposal and interface specs for invoke-rc.d and policy-rc.d.
Changelog:
* `maybe-restart' renamed to `restart-if-running';
* Fallback action for `restart' attempted out-of-runlevel
is now
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:10:13AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
Generally very nice (haven't read the actual scripts yet...). I definitely
approve.
I've one question/concern/objection, though. In your diff of 3.3.3.2, you
have:
+ By default, `invoke-rc.d' will pass any action
[-policy added to CC: list]
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Mark Rahner wrote:
Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
maybe-restart means exectly that: restart only if currently running.
I had been wondering about this. It's a shame this isn't called
restart-if-running.
Well, I am not the author of
Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
[-policy added to CC: list]
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Mark Rahner wrote:
Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
maybe-restart means exectly that: restart only if currently running.
I had been wondering about this. It's a shame this isn't called
restart-if-running.
Well,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Mark Rahner wrote:
Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
maybe-restart means exectly that: restart only if currently running.
I had been wondering about this. It's a shame this isn't called
restart-if-running.
I absolutely
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Mark Rahner wrote:
I'm just a lurker (at this point) and I'm not out to make work for anyone so
take my comments for what they're worth. In answer to your question, I'm a
big
fan of extreme clarity. I think the three extra characters are well worth
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Mark Rahner wrote:
I'm just a lurker (at this point) and I'm not out to make work for anyone so
take my comments for what they're worth. In answer to your question, I'm a
big
fan of extreme clarity.
On 31-Oct-00, 21:03 (CST), Henrique M Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer to get this whole invoke-rc.d deal into policy with an optional
maybe-restart first to fix the worst mess. After it's in policy, any
developer can propose changing maybe-restart to non-optional and we can have
Gah. Do we have to keep cross-posting threads to multiple lists?
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:03:17AM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
+ `update-rc.d' and the system administrator. Also, requests to
restart a
+ service out of its
Generally very nice (haven't read the actual scripts yet...). I definitely
approve.
I've one question/concern/objection, though. In your diff of 3.3.3.2, you
have:
+ By default, `invoke-rc.d' will pass any action requests (start, stop,
+ reload, restart...) to the /etc/init.d script,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
+ `update-rc.d' and the system administrator. Also, requests to restart
a
+ service out of its intended runlevels are changed to a stop request.
The last sentence causes a problem in the following (contrived?)
scenario.
1. Daemon
19 matches
Mail list logo
