Re: chkconfig packages for testing (will ITP soon)
On 25 Jun 2001 at 01:24 (-0800), Ethan Benson wrote:
| On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 04:58:46AM -0400, Brent Verner wrote:
| > | This does not work with file-rc, does it?
| >
| > I'm don't know what 'file-rc' is.
|
| ive been meaning to look at file-rc for awhile now and just did.
yes, it is very nice. Thanks for clueing me in. I just converted
my boxen :)
| > redhat's, so new redhat to debian converts don't have to fumble around
| > with update-rc.d when managing services.
|
| redhat users have to learn about many new and different things when
| moving to debian, there is nothing wrong with that and it should not
| be used as an excuse to port redhat cruft over.
agreed, but I think we should strive that those differences be
for the better, which in the case of chkconfig vs. update-rc.d,
chkconfig is a much better tool.
| having said that i started with redhat and moved to debian after
| becoming annoyed with redhats deficient distribution. at first i
| found the lack of things like chkconfig strange but then i learned why
| its not needed:
hmm... I started on debian, but have recently been forced to deal
with redhat boxen. There are some things about redhat that are better,
and I think it would be smart for debian to absorb those, and leave
the broken parts of redhat alone :)
| on debian if you don't want a daemon running then why the hell is it
| installed? apt-get --purge remove foo. 99% of the time that
| solution works just fine (even better in woody now that portmap, inetd
| and friends are thier own packages).
fair point.
--
- - - - - -=( d a m o n b r e n t v e r n e r )=- - - - - - -
c e r t i f i e d n o s o u r c o p h o b i c
Reply to: