Re: LSB headers and other junk, how do you hack a quick init script in debian these days?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:41:19 +0200
Michael Ole Olsen <gnu@gmx.net> wrote:
> Who needs to document their own pc they hack on daily?
>
> suddenly I couldnt just place a script in rc2.d folder anymore,
> needed to symlink needed to add an lsb header too it seems
>
> maybe I'm overlooking something
>
> I prefer to hack on my own without using debian tools, update-rc.d
> i.e.
>
> would be nice to be able to place a script in rc2.d folder again,
> even though it isn't a symlink
>
> it seems that 'feature' has been removed in the new debians
>
> I wouldn't do it at work/anywhere where documentation is important
> though but why force people to document / use the right tools?
>
> I prefer an OS that is easy to hack around
>
> debian init scripts is something that frustrates me often, because I
> can't just hack them easily need to symlink in different folders or
> use the debian tool got no experience with sysV or whatever it uses,
> only bash programming which I am fairly good with
>
> so it frustrates me that hacking initscripts should be so annoying at
> times :P
>
> it used to work good back in the days, I could just add an S99mio and
> that would get executed after booting not anymore, now it needs to be
> symlinked and all it seems
>
> there used to be an /etc file one could edit to make boot scripts
> anyone remember which one?
>
> rc.local or such I think, but not sure anymore, debian has changed a
> bit lately it seems
>
> How do you hack a quick init script these days?:)
If it's something that can be done at the end of the boot, I'd recommend
daemontools. Unlike both systemd and sysvinit, your daemons are under
perfect control, and controlling them is zombie-simple.
If you want, I can even tell you how to control which order daemontools
starts its stuff up in, although that would be a kludge and it would
start looking a little like sysvinit scripts.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
Reply to: