On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:48:27AM -0400, Brent Verner wrote: > > agreed, but I think we should strive that those differences be > for the better, which in the case of chkconfig vs. update-rc.d, > chkconfig is a much better tool. careful. they solve different problems. update-rc.d intentionally is designed to discourage maintainer scripts from screwing with the admin's local changes. thats why you must totally remove all links before it will be willing to add/remove existing links. chkconfig is a terrible tool for use in maintainer scripts. it should not replace update-rc.d. > hmm... I started on debian, but have recently been forced to deal > with redhat boxen. There are some things about redhat that are better, > and I think it would be smart for debian to absorb those, and leave > the broken parts of redhat alone :) i can find nothing in redhat of any use to us. > | on debian if you don't want a daemon running then why the hell is it > | installed? apt-get --purge remove foo. 99% of the time that > | solution works just fine (even better in woody now that portmap, inetd > | and friends are thier own packages). > > fair point. > > -- > - - - - - -=( d a m o n b r e n t v e r n e r )=- - - - - - - > c e r t i f i e d n o s o u r c o p h o b i c > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpuoI8GUOL2A.pgp
Description: PGP signature