[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Problems with init scripts at boot after upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy



Bernhard Frühmesser wrote:
> First the service xdm is now started long before other services (like dhcp,
> clamd, dansguardian...) are started.
> Before the upgrade xdm was the last service that was started which was ok.

Sounds like you are now using the parallel boot whereas before it was
the serial boot.

  https://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts/DependencyBasedBoot

When using the parallel boot the xdm (and other display managers) are
started in parallel with the last bits of the boot.  Meaning that it
covers the boot display before the rest of the boot has finished.  It
is the nature of the parallel boot strategy.  (I also want xdm to
start last too.)

> I checked the links in etc/rc?.d/ and xdm has for all S99.
> 
> Then i changed /etc/init.d/xdm
> 
> from
> 
> # Required-Start:    $remote_fs $syslog   to # Required-Start:    $all
> 
> But xdm is still started long before other services.

Did you run 'insserv' after making those changes?  That will be needed
to propagate any changes you made to those files.

  # insserv -v

Be on the lookout for circular dependencies and scripts without LSB
headers.  Those may be due to obsolete conffiles.  Fix all of those if
any are found.

> The second problem i have is with lprng/lpd, these should start at
> systemboot, but they are not started at all, i don´t get any error message
> for these. If i start them manually everything is working.

No idea.  Should be something in the boot log.  Do you have "bootlogd"
installed?  Install it if not and then check the boot log.

> As a workaround i have dissabled to start xdm and lprng/lpd and manually
> added them to rc.local (doing so starts up lprng/lpd correct and xdm as last
> service - which is what i want).

Seems like a good clever workaround to me.  However it would be good
to understand the other issues.

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: