Request 225 was acted upon.
_________________________________________________________________________

         URL: https://rt.openpkg.org/id/225
      Ticket: [OpenPKG #225]
     Subject: Simplification of rc scripts
  Requestors: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
       Queue: openpkg
       Owner: Nobody
      Status: new
 Transaction: Ticket created by thl
        Time: Mon Aug 04 13:55:03 2003
_________________________________________________________________________

This is an old issue and was deferred until the latest release was sent
out. It seems we missed it when migrating from the previous ticket
system.

----- Forwarded message from "REIBER, CHRISTIAN via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----

Date: Tue,  8 Apr 2003 18:23:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: "REIBER, CHRISTIAN via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [CW-IS #102] Simplification of rc scripts 
To: "AdminCc of CW-IS Ticket #102": ;

In rc-scripts it is possible to test a variable via opServiceEnabled in order to
avoid running a section when the service is actually not enabled.

A closer look reveals that in almost all cases this mechanism is needed in most
sections. Therefore I suggest to make it the default behaviour giving the
opportunity to remove that code from the sections (making them easier to read
and to maintain).

A option in the section name (e.g. -a for "always") allows to switch off that
behaviour, i.e. the sections's script than has complete control and is run
whenever the section is requested, irrespective whether the service is enabled
or not.

Idea: This mechanism prevents a manually executed "rc <service> start"  to work.
But it would make sense to allow the system administrator to explicitely
override the "enable=no" without being forced to change the setting of the rc
variable (which could lead to unwanted results if he/she forgets to reset it
again).

--
Christian Reiber, Zeppelin Baumaschinen GmbH, IT/System Engineering
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

----- End forwarded message -----

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Development Team, Operations Northern Europe, Cable & Wireless

Reply via email to