[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please unblock avahi 0.6.23-2



Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> writes:
> [Michael Biebl]
>> Been there, done that. There is no way to satisfy everyone.
> Yes, it suck to have to remove all start and stop symlinks to modify
> the current settings.  The proper solution is to add a update-rc.d API
> to change individual settings, and Kel Modderman has made a proposal
> for this, but I suspect it will not be ready for a long time.

Yes. Please try to remind me of this issue after the lenny release, so
we can tackle this extension of the update-rc.d interface for squeeze.

> Until it is ready, the only way that work for both sysv-rc, file-rc and
> insserv is to remove completely and reinsert the script. :(

Right. But a work-around here for sysv-rc would solve this for ~99.8% of
our users, which is better than reenabling avahi for everybody.

>> Question is, if there are more users out there that use file-rc /
>> insserv or have disabled/modified avahi-daemon start symlinks (which
>> usually only knowledgeable users will do).
>> Please keep in mind that insserv was confirmed as a release goal, so
>> what should I do? I'm open to better suggestions.
> I do not have any better solutions.  The only bad alternative I have
> seen used is to remove known symlinks directly in /etc/rcX.d/, and
> this do not work with file-rc and insserv.  It is done in Ubuntu,
> because they have dropped file-rc.  It is as I see it, not an option
> in Debian.

What about a simple solution: Ask dpkg if sysvrc is installed. If not:
Do the update-rc.d remove/start dance as currently implemented. If it
used, check the current state of /etc/rc?.d/ and insert the new links
accordingly to that. Would you be willing to implement this? It wouldn't
worsen the situation, would improve it for a large majority of users and
doesn't require APIs that are not available (yet).

Marc
-- 
BOFH #150:
Arcserve crashed the server again.

Attachment: pgpgOAOsEjzp5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: