Re: Please remove rcconf

[Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>]

On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 12:09, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 09:28:05AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> >The configuration is not interpreted to mean "no-op".  As I said
> >before,
> 
> you said it, but it's wrong.
> 
> >There is evidently a lot of confusion surrounding this issue.
> >Something should be added to the Debian Reference about it.
> 
> Luckily there's already something in debian policy:


I presented an argument based on facts about how the system works;
your counter-argument consists of a quotation from policy.  You must
be assuming that everything that policy claims is true.


> The system administrator will have the opportunity to
> customize runlevels by simply adding, moving, or removing
> the symbolic links in /etc/rcn.d if symbolic links are
> being used, or by modifying /etc/runlevel.conf if the
> file-rc method is being used.
> 
> Note the part about removing?


For the sake of argument I'll temporarily grant that the intent
of the Author of Policy was for the absence of symlinks to be a
"supported" configuration state.  The first thing to notice is
that the Author of Policy could have been confused.  (He wouldn't
have been the only one.)  Nothing is said there about how the
no-symlink state should be supported.  Should the absence of an S
symlink be equivalent to the presence of a K symlink, or should
it mean "no-op" or what?  The second thing to notice is that
the system we have today doesn't in fact implement either of the
latter possibilities.

So, currently, a service can only be disabling in a runlevel by
installing a K symlink for it in that runlevel.
-- 
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>