Re: Bug#545691: diverting telinit
On Tue, Oct 27 2009, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 873a59ens7.fsf@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> you wrote:
>>> Maybe another check besides inode idendity is better, otherwise it will not
>>> be able to be used afer an upgrade (and before reboot), or?
>>
>> Not needed. If init has been just upgraded, it has been already
>> told to init -u itself. So, what are the cases?
>
> I was not aware that u use init -u instead of (the diverted) telinit. Solves
> my issue, but does not look nice.
>
>> Umm, this is opportunistic: I don't think people want tob e
>> bothered when running qemubuilder or doing things in a chroot. I am nto
>> sure the information is valuable enough to clutter up the user
>> interface; I am willing to hear reasons why I am wrong.
>
> I am not concerned about the ppl running a builder but about the admin using
> telinit and have no clue which of the x failure modes leads to a errorlevel
> 0 but no reaction. (instead of error messages like "fifo not found" etc)
Isn't that a different scenario, though? We were talking here
about how a maintainer script goes about getting init to re-exec
itself, and when it is safe to do so.
manoj
--
He knows not how to know who knows not also how to unknow. Sir Richard
Burton
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: