[SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad
Arwed von Merkatz
v.merkatz at gmx.net
Wed Dec 15 11:53:26 EST 2004
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:25:07AM +0000, Eric Schabell wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 December 2004 03:26, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > > > And, I'm wondering how it turns the box into unusable? If it does
> > > > THAT, then it is clear we need either an essential init script added or
> > > > some more logic added to an already existing essential init script.
> > > > Thus, bug, file, now, as Andrew says. ;)
> > >
> > > The other thing is, that not all the non-ESSENTIAL init scripts in the
> > > init.d spell are really optional either. Most systems should have them,
> > > but then when sorcery looks at the ESSENTIAL bit, it doesnt know how to
> > > make that distinction. The init.d querying code in sorcery was written
> > > for the common case of a spell installing some non-essential service,
> > > not for the specific case of the init.d spell, which obviously isnt
> > > installing your average everyday plug-in init scripts. So what I would
> > > prefer is the init.d spell do its own thing for init files that are
> > > optional only for users who really really dont want them. It can and
> > > should still use the libinitd calls for installing the files but should
> > > probably have its own specific set of querying routines for these files,
> > > otherwise we have to make sorcery even more complicated to handle not
> > > only common case situations but special case situations.
> > Agreed.
> > I presume jkolb can tell us where we goofed on defaulting to no at (in a
> > special case that requires a special "dispensation").
> > Seth
> Why not have the menu pop up like the iso does to ask what you want enabled or
> disabled in the way of init-scripts, filled with current settings:
> (x) mount.sh
> ( ) hotplug
That might be nice, but if it's done it can only be optional, so we
still need a different way to make it "just work".
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
More information about the SM-Discuss