Re: Pre-Depends: init-system-helpers
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 09:22:39AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> writes:
> > > BTW, it occured to me that it seems like a wart that update-rc.d doesn't
> > > respect policy-rc.d -- as it stands, policy-rc.d can prevent a service
> > > from (re)starting during install/upgrade, but it'll still start on the
> > > next boot. Is that just something that never got thought of / done, or
> > > does it actually make sense?
> > Consider, for example, bootstrapping a new system in a local chroot that
> > will then be deployed as a virtual image. You want policy-rc.d to prevent
> > starting any daemons from the chroot while you're installing and
> > configuring packages, but you still want all the service management links
> > and policy installed as normal so that, after you turn this into a cloud
> > image, everything will run properly.
>
> Thanks, that makes sense.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of:
>
> - do the install with policy-rc.d overriding which services are active
> - once you change your policy (once you've finished bootstrapping), you
> change or remove policy-rc.d, and continue on your merry way
>
> But having update-rc.d obey policy-rc.d would stop that from working
> right; having /init/ obey policy-rc.d would work fine, but that's just
> crazy complicated.
>
> Followup question: does anyone actually use the detailed features of
> policy-rc.d or is always used in practice to turn all init scripts off?
I think I heard of someone using them *once*. It is very rare, AFAIK.
However, if there is one thing I learned the hard way, is that people who
use the advanced features don't make themselves or that fact known unless
you ask. They often don't show up even when you break things for them :-(
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: