On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:09:42PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Now that maintainers realized that one might like a package installed,
> but perhaps only plans to use it unoften, it only makes sense for not
> starting at boot to be offered as a friendly configuration option,
> instead of needing so
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:03:16 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
>> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /usr/local, or we have a FHS violation.
>
>Please request that we enhance invoke-rc.d to look on /usr/local first,
>then (through a wis
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:32:02AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /usr/local, or we have a FHS violation.
> Additionally, the requirement of going through the alternatives system
> for policy-rc.d selection is somewhat mis-placed, because it suggests
> to me that policy-rc
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A bad hack. I hate to drop my own binaries to /usr/sbin.
You can make /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d a symlink to the file of your choice
under /usr/local. A bit less bad, but wouldn't prevent something
undesirable happening if you install a package shipping
/usr/sb
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Marc Haber wrote:
> So policy-rc.d needs to be in /usr/local, or we have a FHS violation.
Please request that we enhance invoke-rc.d to look on /usr/local first,
then (through a wishlist bug). Looks like a good idea at first glance.
> Additionally, the requirement of going t
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:44:42 +1100, Matthew Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:15:52AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am not a native speaker, but to me it looks like your message
>> doesn't fit the questions I asked.
>
>Steve answered your first question. The second ques
On 2005-01-25 Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24-Jan-05, 03:45 (CST), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
> > by packages. As far as I remember, it is for sarge, but not for woody
> > and thus unuseable on w
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:15:52AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:46 -0600, Steve Greenland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 24-Jan-05, 03:45 (CST), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
> >> by packa
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:01:46 -0600, Steve Greenland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24-Jan-05, 03:45 (CST), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
>> by packages. As far as I remember, it is for sarge, but not for woody
>> and t
On 24-Jan-05, 03:45 (CST), Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
> by packages. As far as I remember, it is for sarge, but not for woody
> and thus unuseable on woody, right?
>
> Do we already have packages that provide policy
On 2005-01-24 Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Last time I looked, invoke-rc.d was not yet a requirement to be used
> by packages. As far as I remember, it is for sarge, but not for woody
> and thus unuseable on woody, right?
[...]
There are almost no packages in woody which make use
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:21:02 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>echo -e '#!/bin/sh\n\nexit 101' > /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d \
>&& chmod a+x /chroot/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d
A bad hack. I hate to drop my own binaries to /usr/sbin.
Greetings
Marc
--
-
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:01:39 +0100, Michal Politowski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:20 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> My beef is that I want to be able to prevent a newly installed
>> package's postinst from starting the service
>
>Looks like something invoke-rc.d calls policy-
* Dan Jacobson
| Not starting apache2 - edit /etc/default/apache2 and change NO_START to be 0.
[...]
| Now that maintainers realized that one might like a package installed,
| but perhaps only plans to use it unoften, it only makes sense for not
| starting at boot to be offered as a friendly co
On 23-Jan-05, 14:05 (CST), Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:53:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> > /etc/default/foo. I could tolerate it if packaged defaulted *on*, but it
> > seems the habit is to default off. And more importangly, as others have
> > said (
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:53:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 20-Jan-05, 22:09 (CST), Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure, one can go behind the backs of maintainers with
> > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html#s3.6
> > > ("Disabling daemon se
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:53:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> /etc/default/foo. I could tolerate it if packaged defaulted *on*, but it
> seems the habit is to default off. And more importangly, as others have
> said (every single time this comes up), there is an *existing* mechanism
> to acco
On 20-Jan-05, 22:09 (CST), Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, one can go behind the backs of maintainers with
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html#s3.6
> > ("Disabling daemon services")
> and hope you remember what you did. But it's not as friendly a
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:40:08 +0100, Marc Haber wrote in part:
> Ihave a number of server packages installed on my
> personal laptop for the sake of having the docs with me. I am,
> however, fine with using update-rc.d or $EDITOR /etc/runlevel.conf[1]
> to accomplish this.
In some cases this might
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:00:27 +0100, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Now that maintainers realized that one might like a package installed,
> but perhaps only plans to use it unoften, it only makes sense for not
> starting at boot to be offered as a friendly configuration option,
> instead of needing some dev
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:10:37AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:44:16 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>I hope that at least the cupsys maintainer will close this bug without
> >>mangling the package i
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:44:16 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>I hope that at least the cupsys maintainer will close this bug without
>>mangling the package in this fashion; there's no reason to have the cupsys
>>server package installed
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:20 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
[...]
> My beef is that I want to be able to prevent a newly installed
> package's postinst from starting the service
Looks like something invoke-rc.d calls policy-rc.d for.
> (for example, because I
> know that the service needs configuration
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:44:16 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I hope that at least the cupsys maintainer will close this bug without
>mangling the package in this fashion; there's no reason to have the cupsys
>server package installed if you're not going to use it as a server.
I d
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:09:42PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Sure, one can go behind the backs of maintainers with
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html#s3.6
> > ("Disabling daemon services")
> and hope you remember what you did. But it's not as friendly as
> th
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:09:42PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Now that maintainers realized that one might like a package installed,
> but perhaps only plans to use it unoften, it only makes sense for not
> starting at boot to be offered as a friendly configuration option,
> instead of needing so
Sure, one can go behind the backs of maintainers with
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch3.en.html#s3.6
> ("Disabling daemon services")
and hope you remember what you did. But it's not as friendly as
the approaches more and more packages are taking, as seen in my /var/log/b
27 matches
Mail list logo
