Re: --no-run option (was: Re: red worm amusement)
Exactly. It is more of a special case to *not* want a server to start
at boot rather than the other way around. To those who think that
apt-get install apache is too easy, then why is apt-get remove apache
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 04:00:43PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Steven Barker wrote:
> > I think that there should be a way to install a debian server packages
> > without having the installation scripts start the server. This need not be
> > default, but it should be possible.
> Why should anyone want to install a server without letting it run?
> The standard-config is normally sane, and when you do not think so, place
> another config-file there before installing it. ( If you are that paranoic
> you should not only do ar -x xxx.deb ; tar -xzf data.tgz etc/configfile ,
> but also check the whole package before installing it).
> > would download, install and configure apache, but not run it. When the
> > sysadmin was satisfied with the configureation files, etc, then update-rc.d
> > and such could be run by hand (or by another call to apt-get/dpkg with
> > another flag).
> Not adding rc.d-Links is really ridicilous. If you have an computer, that
> justs boots after installing without the chance to change links, than you
> should plug-out the network-cable so or so.
> > This would have to be both a policy change and a technical change in apt
> > and/or dpkg. I think it would be a good compromise between security and the
> > simplicity of apt-get install foo.
> I do not see a nesecarity for it. Though if you want to supply patches to
> carry an --no-run in dpkg to some environment-variable to the script and
> and patch to dh_xxx to check this, go ahead, but there are important and
> senseful thing to do.
> Bernhard R. Link
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com