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

Re: Bug in apmd debian scripts

On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 19:59, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 15:16, Chris Hanson wrote:
> > > Thomas Hood has been working on an alternative system, in which the
> > > event sequencing is controlled by statements inside the scripts.
> > > This promises to simplify things in the long run.
> > 
> > Why?
> The alternative system to which Chris referred uses priority
> declarations instead of sequence numbers to determine execution
> order.  The declarations can either be in the scripts themselves
> or in external files or both.  Scripts that are not prioritized
> relative to one another are run simultaneously.
> It is possible to design the system so that the priorities depend
> on how the script is executed -- i.e., with which arguments.
> E.g., it is possible to make A follow B on suspend but precede it
> on resume.  Such a system eliminates the need for the symlink
> farms that one finds in the current apmd package.

Hm. To run them simultanuously, one could give them the same order
number, eg. 40-foo would be run at the same time as 40-bar (of course,
run-parts would have to changed for that). And I am not convinced that
it is really worth it. For another order, one could execute them in
reverse order (--reverse for run-parts), or use the sym link farm, which
is okay for me. I do not adhore sym links, at least not if they follow
an easy to understand scheme, which is the case here. This works for the
init.d scripts, why not in other script.d directories?

As I wrote in my original mail, I do not want to look into every single
file to see in which order they are executed. And if the information is
in an external file, this can be just another script, no need for
run-parts then. And it would be even more flexible...

I do not want to stop your creativity, but I do not like
overcomplicating simple things.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: