sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Eric Schabell <eric AT schabell.com>
- To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:25:07 +0000
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
etc....
erics
-
[SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Jeremy Kolb, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Andrew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Paul Mahon, 12/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Andrew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Seth Alan Woolley, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Andrew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Seth Alan Woolley, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Eric Schabell, 12/15/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Seth Alan Woolley, 12/15/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Arwed von Merkatz, 12/15/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Eric Sandall, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Eric Schabell, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Seth Alan Woolley, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Jeremy Kolb, 12/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Eric Sandall, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Andrew, 12/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad, Jeremy Kolb, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Paul Mahon, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] init.d defaults are evil and bad,
Andrew, 12/14/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.