Re: The future of non-dependency-based boot
Raphael Geissert <email@example.com> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> 3) Aborting the upgrade because dependency boot ordering fails will be a
>> major issue for users. You already mentioned 2 issues and on my system
>> at home I get an error about a dependency loop. Dependency based boot
>> doesn't seem to be universally working enough yet.
> If it is caused by a package: file a bug, otherwise fix it.
Most commonly left over scripts cause this problem and isn't a bug in
>> 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.
> Sounds very much like you want to configure those other boot scripts in a
> different runlevel to then switch to it. If you do it all by hand you need
> to: copy them, create the symlinks, run insserv, telinit.
Yeah, something that will have to be done in the future. I'm still
hoping to keep the existing legacy way till we switch to e.g. systemd
and have to rewrite it all anyway.