Re: About using Linuxconf
>I'm sure I must have missed an earlier part of
>this discussion, so I'm going to drop out of it and just listen
>for a while.
Only one problem, We were the only people in the discussion. :-). The
reason I brought up linuxconf is b/c Bruce mentioned that He (or should
that be We) want a centralized method for configuration data, or at least
for admin'ing the data. So I basically thought, Why should we reinvent the
wheel, lets just use linuxconf, it doesn't require a centralized database
that's incompatable with everything else and the fixes to packages to
support it should be minor, and that way we can make both parties happy,
The ones that just want SysV init can have it and people who want linuxconf
can use it. Personally, I would probably use linuxconf, IF it was
supported out of the box.
I think what you though I was saying that we would have something like a
portinst script in linuxconf that would install the proper dropin's. I
only have two problems with this
1. It would probably be better to just have the linuxconf package come
with them, i.e. We would go through all the packages that install anything
in init.d and make dropin's for them. We would then put this in a
linuxconf-dropins package. This package would have a postinst script that
would go through the installed packages and "activate" the dropins.
2. Damn, I forgot the 2'nd problem :-).
However, this is much, much less than optimal b/c any upgrade of a package
could screw this up, if we don't get out a linuxconf-dropin package out
right aftwards. Therefore that is why I proposed that the project should
offically support linuxconf, and the packages should provide the dropins.
IMHO, this shouldn't be a big pain, Hey debmake may be able to take care of
it, you reading this Christoph, but if everyone else thinks this is a bad
Idea, I am willing to drop it.
Shaya
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: