Christopher Phillips (Blake) wrote: > I sent in the same patches for bacula-sd and bacula-director. Since, > those are daemons that should not be running on all hosts, they make > more sense to enable/disable, especially if you're using a generated > image across many hosts. > > The bacula-fd version was to be consistent. If you don't have the > /etc/default/bacula-fd file in place, the init script still works.
I am still really not sure this is sensible. Isn't this what update-rc.d is supposed to do? > > Chris. > > > John Goerzen wrote: >> What is the point of installing bacula-fd and then not running it? >> >> That just doesn't make sense to me. >> >> Christopher Phillips (Blake) wrote: >> >>> Package: bacula-fd >>> Severity: Normal >>> Version: 2.4.4-1 >>> Tags: patch >>> >>> I believe that bacula-fd should be enabled or disabled using the >>> /etc/default/bacula-fd file. I'm submitting a patch to >>> /etc/init.d/bacula-fd to include this. >>> >>> --- bacula-fd 2009-05-22 13:31:25.000000000 -0700 >>> +++ /etc/init.d/bacula-fd 2009-04-20 08:02:48.000000000 -0700 >>> @@ -40,7 +40,13 @@ >>> if [ -f /etc/bacula/do_not_run ]; then >>> echo "Not starting $DESC: disabled via /etc/bacula/do_not_run" >>> exit 0 >>> - fi >>> + elif [ -r /etc/default/bacula-fd ]; then >>> + . /etc/default/bacula-fd >>> + fi >>> + if [ "x$ENABLED" != "xyes" ]; then >>> + echo "Not starting $DESC: disabled via >>> /etc/default/bacula-fd" >>> + exit 0 >>> + fi >>> >>> echo -n "Starting $DESC: " >>> start-stop-daemon --start --quiet --pidfile $PIDFILE \ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
