This one time, at band camp, Mark Brown said:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:20AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> The more noticable issue is
[Jan Christoph Nordholz]
> the present situation has portmap at 18 and autofs and nis at 19;
> this is a problem even at normal bootup. Nis moving to 18 would
> improve things, but not fix them wholly for systems which switch to
> single-user and back - and that's where we are, discussing whether
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:20AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> 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
The more noticable issue is the collision between nis and autofs. Both
run at level 1
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:20AM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> 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
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 nis&autofs to manually
> >shuffle their init scripts around, and this is a very common
> >setup... Moving autofs to st
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:19:33AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> You don't need to rename the /etc/init.d file, just the symlink in
> /etc/rc?.d.
Sure, if I reimplemented the update-rc.d functionality in postinst,
which I'm not very fond of either. Maybe it's worth it, to keep the
hack as m
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},
>
Hi Luk,
> So, that's something we don't want to do, certainly not at this stage of
> the release cycle.
>
> What's wrong with Steinar's suggestion to change the name of the autofs
> script to be something between 19nis and 20apache?
conclusion first: If that's the ultimate response of the releas
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.
--
"Yo
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Jan Christoph Nordholz <[EMAIL P
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL
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 be
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 scrip
13 matches
Mail list logo
