Re: what is portmap?
On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 12:00:29AM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:32:28PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 08:11:25PM +0600, V.Suresh wrote:
> > > What is the portmap process meant for? Shall I safely
> > > update-rc.d remove it?
> >
> > If you're not using NFS or NIS then you can safely remove it. Those are
> > the 2 main services that need it.
> >
> > Don't use update-rc.d remove, though. If you ever upgrade your system
> > it will restore all the symlinks to the default configuration. Instead
> > just remove the 'S' symlinks (the ones that start portmap) by hand.
> > Leave the 'K' symlinks. If you leave some symlinks in place then
> > your configuration won't be overwritten when you upgrade.
>
> well! this brings up an interesting point --
>
> is there a DEBIAN-happy way to permanently remove an
> /etc/init.d/* service? this wholesale 'rm' stuff sounds hacky
> for such a streamlined apt-friendly distribution. what's the
> debian way of purging-inits-for-posterity?
dpkg --purge <package>
With Potato, I seemed to remember I couldn't really get rid of the
package that contained portmap for some reason (a dependency or
something) but I always just had "exit 0" at the top of the init.d
script since I never needed RPC. Seems portmap's in it's own package in
Sid (unstable).
The init scripts are only removed if you purge the package that "owns"
it. Occasionally people might want to hack the Debian supplied init
scripts, so dpkg doesn't muck with them too much, except on a "purge".
Also, the init scripts usually test that the program they're about to
start still exists. So, obviously the service won't be run (nor will
the script error).
As far as update-rc.d goes; if a package is updated and at least one
symlink already exists in one of the /etc/rc?.d dirs, then symlinks
won't be modified. Otherwise, the scripts don't have a way to
differentiate between a clean install and an update. If no symlinks
exist, it is assumed an "install" is occurring and the default symlinks
should be created (which may not be what you want!). Make sense?
--
Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>
Reply to: