Kel Modderman wrote: > On Saturday 18 April 2009 03:46:04 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Michael Biebl wrote: >>>>> I think, one missing piece is a proper interface for updating init >>>>> script priorities (if the depencies or the list of runlevel changes) in >>>>> a policy compliant way. >>>> There is no such interface in this case (if we had one, insserv would have >>>> to make it a no-op). You have to edit the initscript metadata directly >>>> (because it is embedded in comment headers on the initscript itself) to do >>>> such changes, then tell the system to rebuild the initscript dependency >>>> tree. >>> How do you do that exactly while preserving local modifications? >> The local modifications have to be done on the initscript headers, which are >> conffiles since the dawn of time. The user is warned that by switching to a >> dependency-based initscript system, the old order information is deemed >> irrelevant and thus completely ignored. >> >> There is also an override directory that can be used to change the >> dependency headers instead of editing the initscript, but we should get rid >> of any need to ship files in there as part of the release goal (local admin >> can place stuff there as he wishes). >> >> So, you can have local modifications to the *DEPENDENCY* information in an >> override directory. > > I'm pretty sure there is a misunderstanding here. An interface for modifying > unmodified script properties (such as what runlevels it starts/stops) is > desirable for use in package maintainer scripts when a new version of the > package wishes to change the scripts start/stop or sequence/dependency > properties. That is what Michael is poking us about. > > An interface for this was proposed for legacy (aka sysv-rc's) update-rc.d: > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sysvinit-devel/2008-September/002865.html > > The discussion went cold after Michael posited that the proposed interface is > prone to error because it relies on a human to write out a snippet of shell > code in a maintainer script. A similar interface could exist for insserv's > update-rc.d. I am without any better ideas at this time. Yeah, that's pretty much what I tried to say (thanks Kel for the clarification) For the record, I don't want it to be understood as I'm against insserv. To the contrary: as we are already 95% there, it would imho be stupid to not make use of it and reap the benefits (though I still think we need something more flexible/dynamic long term, the improvements by insserv are nice for the short term). I'd even be in favour of dropping the static priorities interface (and file-rc for that matter), as it would make our lives as maintainers much simpler. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature