On Tuesday 21 April 2009 02:11:24 Michael Biebl wrote: > 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. in more depth when/if we get together in June for the boot performance meeting. > 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. system you seem to be in there with stimulating discussion. > 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. |