Re: Some ideas about the Debian Runlevel System
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 03:28:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>>Then you should define the dependencies more precise, that is it.
>
> In theory, yes. You still haven't addressed the "more trouble than it's
> worth" argument. In practice this is not something I see users crying
> out for. I know that the lack of init script runtime dependencies
> certainly isn't causing problems for me.
One obvious use case is laptops and other machines with intermittent
network. Services like ntp and zephyr which actively depend on having
network available can be told "depend on network", and then ifup can
start 'network' and any dependent services. When network goes away,
'network' and anything that depends on it stops. You could also use
this to get around problems where ntpdate, if it runs at all, wants to
run after network is up but before ntp is started.
(If this does get implemented, my wishlist feature is something that
distinguishes "network" from "routable network", where the latter
isn't behind a NAT and so services like AFS and Zephyr where the
server contacts the local machine work. But that should be trivial to
do within this framework.)
--
David Maze dmaze@debian.org http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
Reply to: