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

Re: bug? with file-rc



Jonathan P Tomer <phouchg@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

> ii  file-rc         0.4.3          Alternative one-configfile boot mechanism

This version has many errors, some of them are fixed in the actual 0.4.7.

> i don't know if this is supposed to be the case or not, but contrary
> to file-rc's documentation, scripts are not run in reverse order for
> shutting down. is this a debian-specific thing or merely a bug?

file-rc is based on a program (nowadays called r2d2) written by
Winfried Trümper. This program run the "stop" scripts in reverse
order. But this isn't the way, rc from sysvinit works and file-rc
should be fully compatible to sysvinit-rc. Because of this someone
patched file-rc not to stop the scripts in reverse order but to insert 
two lines (using update-rc.d) into runlevel.conf, one that starts the
process and another one that stops it. The file is always read from
top to bottom.

It seems that /usr/doc/file-rc/README.gz is simply copied from
Winfrieds original program and the person who patched it for debian
didn't change this README.

> are the etc/rcN.d/Kmm* scripts run in descending order when file-rc
> is not used?

No, they are run in ascending order as well as the runlevel.conf is
always run top down.

> i find it rather strange, especially since not reversing shutdown
> scripts makes it necessary to double the number of lines in
> /etc/runlevel.conf (and have the numbers of start/stop links in
> /etc/rcN.d differ) in those cases where order does matter.

I fully agree with you!
I asked what other people think about this some weeks ago, but the
only answer I got was a cry for "compatibility" and the variant with
stopping in reverse order is not 100% compatible to sysvinit-rc...

So at the moment (0.4.7) we have a file-rc which isn't as elegant as
the original file-rc/r2d2 but which should be compatible to
sysvinit-rc. If someone (like you and me) wants a more elegant, but
incompatible variant, it may be a good idea to create another package
(for example with the name r2d2) which has status "eXtra" and presents 
a big warning on install that update-rc.d will behave not exactly like 
the one of sysvinit and as it is described in the policy (see section
3.3).

Tschoeeee

        Roland

-- 
 * roland@spinnaker.rhein.de * http://www.rhein.de/~roland/ *
 PGP: 1024/DD08DD6D   2D E7 CC DE D5 8D 78 BE  3C A0 A4 F1 4B 09 CE AF


Reply to: