Re: Request for Comments: Standardize enabling/disabling of system services
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:07:25PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:12:25PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:05:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > I think that renaming and/or removing the init script symlinks is the
> > > > Right Thing To Do, but the tools we have for doing this are awful. I
> > > > think it would be a great solution if update-rc.d gained the following
> > > > features:
> > > I think this should be a separate program, reserving update-rc.d for
> > > maintainer script use. But please, not 'chkconfig', which is an entirely
> > > unintuitive name. :)
> > ACK. What speaks against 'service'? :)
> If we use the name 'service', please also make it handle service
> starting/stopping, which is what the program of the same name is
> traditionally used for on Red Hat systems (and now on Ubuntu).
Makes sense. Yep.
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 06:26:26PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
> > >> ACK. What speaks against 'service'? :)
> > > Too generic? Maybe something like 'debserv' would be better, because
> > > it's Debian specific.
> > Maybe I am wrong, but since (most of) the Debian-specific tools to deal
> > with rc.d scripts end in -rc.d, why not 'service-rc.d'?
> As already mentioned, I very much don't want these tools to be bound to
> sysv-rc, which I question the viability of in the long term.
Additional I thought 'WTF' when I read '... because it's Debian specific...'
because I really don't see a sense in that. Having tools for similar jobs do the
same on every system is really a step in the right direction to standardization.