On 01/15/2013 02:24 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> This is a valid concern. It would certainly start them both or, at
>> > least, try. But, is it normal for one to have two different syslog
>> > implementations installed? Is this a valid use case?
> That's why we're using u-a for init script, isn't i
On 01/14/2013 06:49 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:39:29PM +0200, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
>> update-rc.d fails when executing the postinstall on host. That's because
>> 'syslog' is renamed to 'syslog.busybox' and a 'syslog' link to it is made
>> instead. However, on host, the
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:39:29PM +0200, Laurentiu Palcu wrote:
> update-rc.d fails when executing the postinstall on host. That's because
> 'syslog' is renamed to 'syslog.busybox' and a 'syslog' link to it is made
> instead. However, on host, the link is not valid and update-rc.d will
> complain
update-rc.d fails when executing the postinstall on host. That's because
'syslog' is renamed to 'syslog.busybox' and a 'syslog' link to it is made
instead. However, on host, the link is not valid and update-rc.d will
complain that the file does not exist. On target, this does not happen.
So, this
