On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 09:40:55PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 05:27:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Not really, as I've checked for the existance of the old link as well. > > > If there is no S10watchdog the links are not removed. Don't you think > > > this suffices? > > What if the user has changed their default runlevel to 3, and edited the > > startup symlink for this runlevel only? Or, they want watchdog to start up > > normally in runlevel 2, but they have another runlevel where they explicitly > > want to not run it for debugging purposes? > How about adding a check for the existance of all links? That would make > sure the default usage gets update and does not interfere with the > others. That would be acceptable, yes. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature