Re: Can insserv made better?
Mike Bird dijo [Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:09:39PM -0800]:
> No, I'm saying that Snn/Knn values boot some systems where
> insserv fails. Therefore Snn/Knn is superior in some cases.
> I readily concede that insserv is superior in some cases.
>
> In order to avoid breaking Debian systems we should give
> people a balanced overview of the pros and cons rather
> than blindly telling them that insserv is "recommended"
> when it is unnecessary and may break their systems.
>
> I'm not asking for insserv to be removed. I'm asking
> that Debian users be given accurate information upon
> which to base their decisions rather than dangerously
> misleading information.
As it was already pointed out to you, such occurences were due to
incomplete dependencies declared in the initscripts - And as such,
they were bugs in the respective packages. The right way to fix them
is to provide the needed dependency information in the startup
scripts.
Yes, upgrades (specially upgrades of complex, production systems)
should be faced with care and after having thoroughly studied the
relevant release notes. Now, there is a real intention from Debian's
part to getting out of the 1980s Sxx/Kxx scheme. It is an obsolete
scheme, not suitable for our amount of packages, which had effectively
been squished to much less because of the inability to declare what
depended on what, and assuming a flat world. Dependency-based boot
ordering gives important benefits to our users.
And yes, benefits will sometimes require an experienced sysadmin to
learn a new trick, scratch a bit his head. The change is worth a
little re-learning.
Reply to: