Re: The future of non-dependency-based boot
Roger Leigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:13:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Roger Leigh <email@example.com> writes:
>> As a side note I have a use case at work where static order seems to be
>> needed. We build boot images for network boot of clusters. During boot
>> additional files can be copied from NFS into the system including boot
>> scripts. When using dependency based boot order the numbers for boot
>> scripts change a lot depending on the boot image (include support for
>> lustre, ha, slurm, ... and each gets a different order). That makes it
>> impossible (or at least a lot harder) to copy in the same generic boot
>> scripts from NFS into different images since the name needs to be
>> different for each case. The boot scripts would have to be reordered
>> during boot.
> So do your boot scripts declare the correct dependency information
> in the LSB header? With dependency based boot, the numbers are
> meaningless other than for ordering. The fact that they change is
> to be expected. Are you running insserv to update the ordering?
I'm not running insserv at boot.