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

Re: update-inetd

On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:21:35PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > > * should packages disable inetd config entries on removal and in
> > > preparation for upgrade, and then reenable the entries after upgrade
> > > is complete?

> > No, they shouldn't, because this loses local modifications to the inetd.conf
> > line.

> Actually it doesn't.

> If you call update-inetd with --disable in prerm it just prepends
> "#<off># " to your line (if the service is enabled), and when you call
> it in postinst with --enable it will remove the "#<off># ".

> Running --enable will not touch any lines without the magic '#<off># '
> token, so if the admin commented out the line with just # (or anything
> not #<off>#) the service will stay disabled, thereby preserving the
> admin's configuration.

Hmm, ack.

Though one of Brian's questions was about services "that should be disabled
by default"; disabling those on prerm without enabling them on postinst
would be wrong because it loses the admin's choice to enable the service.
Disabling them on prerm and enabling them on postinst would be wrong because
then it wouldn't be disabled by default.  The only reasonable option I see
for that case is to call neither --enable nor --disable for the service.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: