On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 +0200, Faidon Liambotis <parav...@debian.org> wrote: > Sorry for the very late reply.
No problem. It looks like we missed this stable point release, but we
can get the next one!
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:53:57PM -0500, micah anderson wrote:
...
> > (note 105 is behavior uncertain)
>
> Indeed, you are absolutely right, I confirm the above.
Ok, good, I'm glad I'm not insane... or am I?
> With my very limited, only on dependency-based booting-enabled, systems,
> it seems that
> update-rc.d $foo enable
> counteracts
> update-rc.d $foo disable
> properly, as long as you don't call "remove" at any point.
>
> So, removing the
> update_rc "-f", @resource[:name], "remove"
> line before "enable" should be fine.
This does seem like it might work, although I'm concerned about the
corner cases, and:
> However, I'm not sure how that would interact with systems upgraded from
> lenny. I'll check that and get back to you, hopefully soon.
this as well. Please do get back as soon as you test this.
> FWIW, there's a related discussion at debian-devel these days, see
> <20110304113539.ga10...@upsilon.cc>.
Thanks, I'll have a read.
> > This would also make backporting to lenny a problem because "update-rc.d
> > foo {en,dis}able' would not work right, but this is less of a concern.
>
> I guess you can document that and change that back, for the limited time
> that lenny would still live.
True, thats not difficult.
micah
pgpu4LrvgTJQU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
