[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: documenting on how not starting a daemon upon installation

On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 16:23 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 10, jnqnfe@gmail.com wrote:
> > If the policy-rc.d solution is the modern/best/whatever solution,
> > the
> No. policy-rc.d is the old solution which was implemented because
> there 
> was no better way to implement this with init scripts.
> It worked by mandating that maintainer scripts must start and stop 
> daemons only by using invoke-rc.d.
> The modern and simple solution is "systemctl mask", as long as you
> do 
> not need to care about the 0.6% of systems which do not use systemd.
> If you are doing this for your own systems then you obviously know
> if 
> you can rely on systemd or not.
> > fact that live-build/debootstrap also includes the 'moving start-
> > stop-
> > daemon' trick is either indeed a left over from before systemd (I
> > do
> > not know the history of it), or is left to ensure compatibility
> > without
> > systemd?
> It is needed because some buggy maintainer scripts do/did not use 
> invoke-rc.d, so better be safe than sorry.

okay, thankyou.

so as I understand it:
 - the 'move start-stop-daemon' trick is the old-old solution, kept
around because some packages failed to get on board with the policy-
rc.d solution, and could be removed from things like debootstrap/live-
build if and only if at some point in the future there was certainty
that there were no such packages left.
 - the policy-rc.d solition is the old solution, kept around because
systemd use is not quite 100%, though I'd expect and home that all
packages are compatible by now, though systemd has a compatibility
mechanism relating to policy-rc.d to work with users of that.
 - 'systemctl mask' is the modern systemd solution. the best solution
for users if they have systemd. probably pointless though for
debootstrap/live-build use if they're having to keep policy-rc.d
support and even start-stop-daemon support around anyway after all
these years.

Reply to: