Re: Strang shutdown mechanism with Debian
In article <[🔎] 199805171128.MAA02863@linda.lfix.co.uk>,
Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> wrote:
>Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>...
> >>For me it would make more sense moving the S*scripts that
> >>need to be called with "stop" to K92..K98. I don't see that
> >>Knn is "full".
> >
> >And what if you want to insert a new script somewhere in between? That
> >would not be possible anymore. The Kxx and Sxx entries need to be sparse
> >so that you can move things around and insert new links "in between".
>
>But the numbers aren't `used up'; all they do is impose an order on the
>execution of scripts at that run-level. For starting the run-level, the
>S... scripts are run, for stopping it, the K... ones are run, in alphabetical
>order. So S45abc will run before S45xyz but both will run before S46...
I know :)
>-- that is all that the numbers do. They only matter if things must be done
>in a certain order.
But that is exactly my point. It _does_ matter if things must be
done in a certain order.
For example, with the new /etc/rcS.d scheme, it is trivial to move the
moment at which the NFS mounts are done around; you can move it from
/etc/rcS.d/S45mountnfs.sh to /etc/rc2.d/S19mountnfs.sh if you want to
without worrying that upgrades will destroy this new setup.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
miquels@cistron.nl | eventually eliminating it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: