Hi, On Mon, 31.08.2009 at 11:57:10 +0200, Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote: > retitle 543944 don't claim munin-node has been started if it hasn't > severity 543944 minor
I find this an inappropriate. I don't really care whether munin-mode is started during the installation (it currently is, during 'softinst'). The problem is that I couldn't easily work around the fallout it creates, namely, causing the 'softinst' task, and thus the whole FAI installation, to fail. Imho, munin-node should only start when the machine is successfully rebootet *after* FAI had its turn. > On Freitag, 28. August 2009, Tom Feiner wrote: > > Looks like you're running into the problem described here: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539886. > > right. So for 543944 we can ignore this aspect of the bugreport. The bug #539886 looks like being applicable, too, but doesn't note the consequences for an FAI based installation. > > Regarding the starting of munin-node, why do you think it shouldn't be > > started after installation? The munin-node postinst script uses invoke-rc.d > > which obeys runlevel and other locally-defined constraints. > > I guess because Toni saw this: > > > > + invoke-rc.d munin-node start > > > Starting Munin-Node: done. > > which is actually a lie, munin-node wasn't restarted as Tom explained... so > it > would be nice if postinst wouldnt lie to the user :) (Not sure how to achieve > that and it's certainly a minor cosmetic issue.) As I said above, I don't care whether munin-node actually starts or not at this stage, but I'd like to contain the problem with respect to my FAI installation. So far, my only recurse was to remove munin-node from the list of packages to be installed. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
