This one time, at band camp, Adam Heath said: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Adam Heath wrote: > > >On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Adam Heath wrote: > > >>On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Henning Glawe wrote: > > >>> > > >>> S20xend > > >>> S20xendomains > > >>> K20xend > > >>> K20xendomains > > >>> > > >>> so xend is shutdown before the xen-domains are shutdown, which of cause fails > > >>> when there's no xend... > > > > > >>This is a bug in run-parts. It should reverse the order. > > >> > > I don't understand. What is the bug? The order sysv-rc uses to > > run the scripts is the standard order used by POSIX when you > > do a "for i in S??*". That is well known. If that isn't what > > you'd like it to be, fix the priority of the Sxx symlinks. > > Hrm. Maybe this is a problem with update-rc.d. But I don't know. > > update-rc.d defaults bar creates rc2.d/S20bar and rc6.d/K20bar, and > update-rc.d defaults foo creates rc2.d/S20foo and rc6.d/K20foo. During > start, bar is started before foo, which is what is expected. However, during > shutdown, bar is stopped *before* foo, instead of the other way around. > > Yes, one can change the priority of one of the scripts. But that is a lot > more overhead. > > I'm cc'ing devel, as this could be a more general problem, worthy of a broader > fix. It really is not that much more overhead to specify stop order in your scripts to avoid this problem. It looks to me like a packaging bug, is all. Take care, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpNQ4EMSPvyk.pgp
Description: PGP signature