Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> These are the packages without LSB headers in unstable:
...
>
> Recai Oktas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>elog
Which is to be removed; don't worry about it.
>
> Happy hacking,
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachment
Here is a new quick update on this release goal. There are 10
packages without init.d script dependency headers in unstable/sid, and
13 packages in testing/lenny. Because all of the packages used by
Debian Edu now have dependency headers, we have enabled dependency
based boot sequencing for the
Here is a quick update on this release goal. Thanks to the great help
of Peter Eisentraut and Morten Werner Forsbring with NMUing packages,
there is now around 30 packages left in unstable without dependency
information in their init.d scripts. 10 of these are scheduled for
removal, 10 are pendi
* Petter Reinholdtsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080307 10:21]:
> I believe it soon would be ok to switch unstable to use dependency
> based boot sequencing by default.
I don't think so.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
[Steve Langasek]
> Please consider the implications for partial upgrades for such a switch to
> dep-based init by default in lenny. Having half your services fail to come
> up after a power event in the middle of a dist-upgrade, despite being in
> state 'installed', would be Not Nice.
I do not b
[Frans Pop]
> Sure, I'm aware of all that. However, that does not take away my general
> impression that insserv is not stable, mature and tested enough to be
> promoted to the default mechanism.
Well, it is the default mechanism in SuSe and have been it for years.
So it have got quite a lot of t
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 07:41:10PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >> I believe it soon would be ok to switch unstable to use dependency
> >> based boot sequencing by default.
> > I have to say that I disagree with that.
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> I believe it soon would be ok to switch unstable to use dependency
>> based boot sequencing by default.
> I have to say that I disagree with that. I have tried insserv on my
> laptop last month and was not all that happy with the
Frans Pop wrote:
> Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> I am aware of this, but believe you do not have to worry as much as
>> you do. As far as I can see all of your problems originated from the
>> lvm2 script missing headers, and my bad decision to drop override
>> files for packages with headers in un
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I am aware of this, but believe you do not have to worry as much as
> you do. As far as I can see all of your problems originated from the
> lvm2 script missing headers, and my bad decision to drop override
> files for packages with headers in unstable, while forgettin
[Frans Pop]
> I have to say that I disagree with that. I have tried insserv on my
> laptop last month and was not all that happy with the way it worked.
>
> My objections are summarized in:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=465587#35
I am aware of this, but believe you do not have
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I believe it soon would be ok to switch unstable to use dependency
> based boot sequencing by default.
I have to say that I disagree with that. I have tried insserv on my laptop last
month and was not all that happy with the way it worked.
My objections are summarize
Here is a small update on this release goal. More than 77% of the
packages in Debian now got dependency information in their init.d
scripts. This morning, a BTS report is available for all scripts
missing the LSB header. Next step is NMUs to fix the packages. I
assume we will find some bugs in
I'm happy to report that in the insserv package version 1.09.0-6 just
uploaded into unstable, the dependency based boot sequencing work as I
want it to work. I believe we are ready to switch to dependency based
boot in Debian, but understand that more testing is needed to convince
others of the s
[Steve Langasek]
> Well, that seems... suboptimal. :) And something of a barrier to adoption.
Yeah, but it make it easier to detect the problematic ones. :)
> What would be a better heuristic? Even running these scripts last
> instead of first would seem better. Would it make sense to keep
>
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> At the moment I am unable to check the same for unstable, so I do
> not know the state there.
I am now back home from Debconf, and could check the same number in
Unstable. There are 843 packages with init.d scripts in Unstable, and
thus 44% lacking such header.
I've creat
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 06:37:55PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > What do the dependency-based init system replacements that have been
> > proposed to date do in order to handle init scripts that don't have LSB
> > headers? Is there some sort of backwards-compatibility interfa
Steve Langasek wrote:
> What do the dependency-based init system replacements that have been
> proposed to date do in order to handle init scripts that don't have LSB
> headers? Is there some sort of backwards-compatibility interface so that
> those init scripts will at least be run?
Based on a c
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> So there is still a lot of packages missing these headers. I'm not
> sure how many packages do include init.d scripts, so I do not know
> if it is a large fraction or not.
I ran 'apt-file search /etc/init.d|cut -d: -f1|sort -u|wc' on etch,
and this and this gave me 776 as
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:02:50PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> The release team requested email about proposed release goals for
> Lenny. Here is one. I propose to switch to a dependency based SysV
> boot system for Lenny, using the LSB headers in the init.d scripts to
> decide the boot
[Petter Reinholdtsen]
> Do you need more numbers?
While listening on the QA talk at debconf, it occured to me that
lintian.debian.org got numbers of the number of packages missing the
LSB header. http://lintian.debian.org/reports/tags.html> list
this related to the LSB headers:
init.d-script-h
[Martin Zobel-Helas]
> I second this release goal (as DD, not yet as RA; i leave that up to
> Luk and Andi to decide), and would propose "goal-bootseq" for
> user-tagging.
>
> Pere, do you know how many packages are currently buggy? How can we
> prevent new packages from becoming buggy?
We tag bu
Hi,
On Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 17:02:50 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> The release team requested email about proposed release goals for
> Lenny. Here is one. I propose to switch to a dependency based SysV
> boot system for Lenny, using the LSB headers in the init.d scripts to
> decide the
The release team requested email about proposed release goals for
Lenny. Here is one. I propose to switch to a dependency based SysV
boot system for Lenny, using the LSB headers in the init.d scripts to
decide the boot sequence. It is currently possible to convert
existing installations to do t
24 matches
Mail list logo
