On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:57:29AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 01:29:12PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> I can only interpret the dbus subscript as indirectly being part of the > >> `/etc/init.d/*' initscripts. > > Maybe, but is is _not_ managed by sysvinit but by the dbus init scripts, > > thus > > it can't use invoke-rc.d. While i agree it's not as nice it coulde be, i > > don't > > see a real solution untill we get an init system that properly supports > > events > The dbus init scripts _are_ subscripts of sysvinit scripts. "subscripts of sysvinit scripts" are not what is governed by the invoke-rc.d policy. > Policy describes how system daemons should be started only through the > use of invoke-rc.d, and the dbus subscripts are in fact started that way. It describes how system daemons *that have sysv init scripts* must be started using invoke-rc.d. In fact, hal's postinst also does a force-reload on dbus, and in that case it *does* use invoke-rc.d correctly. > hal restarts one of those subscripts directly, which causes problems for > systems relying on policy-rc.d. Yes, clearly it is a problem, but that doesn't make it an RC policy violation. You're extrapolating policy to apply to cases it doesn't cover -- that's fine as a starting point for discussing how this should be fixed, but it doesn't make it an RC bug. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
