On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:18:20AM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:41:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Indeed. Didn't think about the possibility of diversions. I guess > > > diverting the init scripts could be a solution (besides that it needs > > > some further work to the service managing utility). Then I'd > > > whole-heartedly agree with getting rid of RUN_* variables for the sake > > > of consistence.
> > Not diverting init scripts, only diverting update-rc.d and installing a > > wrapper around it. Diverting init scripts would be full of fail. > Hm. In that case I think I don't understand your idea. You don't want to > divert update-rc.d just to pre-disable a certain service, do you? Yes, I do. Intercepting calls to a system tool to modify its behavior is a common use case for dpkg diversions. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
