Re: [LONG] RH refugee comments & questions
Patrice Fortier said:
> I guess that every RH ask you this: :-)
> Why don't you use something like chkconfig to manage the starting/stoping
> of daemons?
> More precisely, I know there is something called update-rc.d, which has
> basically the same goal, but without the cool stuff: the default values.
defaults? as in update-rc.d packagename defaults ?
> Why are the default values S20 & K20? Are all the services supposed to be
> started at S20?
doesn't really matter. on my system I see S10, S11, S14, S19, S20, S90 and
S99. They probably picked numbers to be more organized, certain types of
services get started at certain times. services are started and stopped
in alphabetical order, so S20apache will start before S20syslogd.(example)
> In other words, I wonder if update-rc.d was created to be used in
> post-install scripts with the correct values only. It's not for the
> average admin who'd like to have an hint on a default value for SK values
> of a network service.
see above, the "defaults" don't really matter.. at least I've never
run accross a situation when it did, sometimes one service needs to
be started before another, but the packages take care of that automatically
> My problem is when I want to reactivate a service. With chkconfig I can do
> it like a charm. With update-rc.d I have to remember all the parameters,
> or maybe look at the postinstall script (didn't check this, so I may be
> wrong on this one :)).
see above about the defaults, use the script name in /etc/init.d for
> Why does debian use the run level 2 instead of 3, as usual, to activate
debian has used runlevel 2 for as long as I can remmeber as default, it
makes no distinctions between runlevels 2,3,4,5 that is up to the user
> Even in the LSB you can read:
never read the LSB myself but it sounds like a good document.. debian
has been working on becomming more LSB compliant..
> Why the hell did the debian developpers changed that?
they did not, they have been using runlevel 2 for FAR longer then
the LSB even existed.
> An other feature that I miss is the [ OK ] [FAILED] at boot for the rc?.d/
> stuff. You can think it's just a fancy thing, and in fact you're right as
> long as there is only green OK displayed on the screen.
> The red FAILED displayed is very interesting, especially when you
> expected that everything should be fine.
in my experience if a service fails to start, almost every time an error
is printed on the screen. it will usually say "..failed"
e.g. try misconfiguring apache and try to restart it.
> Why the old inetd is used instead of xinetd? AFAIK xinetd is more
you can apt-get install xinetd and it can automatically convert your
inetd.conf to xinetd.conf if you like. I've been using xinetd myself
since about 1998.
> This wasn't especially annoying, but I was a bit surprised to go some
> years backward...
debian's driver support has always been more lacking then other
distros since they usually have more vanilla kernels, if it is
supported in the kenrel from ftp.kernel.org then most likely it
is supported in the debian equivilent kernel.
> Please, don't misunderstand me, I didn't write this to bash on debian, I'm
> just looking for a way to get the best of both worlds, or at least to get
> the answers to questions that disturb me.
your email didn't come off as a flame to me.
(debian user since hamm, '98)