On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 01:14:17PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [020907 13:11]: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all > > > *-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-* > > > (rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update). > > Uh, that seems entirely gratuitous. > I can not parse your comment. It's a waste of time, for no technical benefit. If we have to change the name anyway, then choosing a better name is worthwhile, but we don't need to change the name, so we shouldn't go around deprecating every single script that manages init.d scripts, and confusing all the developers and admins who've already taken the time to learn how update-rc.d works. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Attachment:
pgppSWdZGVDMo.pgp
Description: PGP signature