About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Stephen Frost (sfrost_at_snowman.net)
Date: Thu 30 Dec 2004 - 14:33:23 GMT

* Kilian Krause (kk_at_verfaction.de) wrote:
> well, it doesn't forcibly re-activate them. Just update-rc.d has a logic
> that when *NONE* of the runlevels has any symlink for either
> S??$SERVICENAME or K??$SERVICENAME then it'll try to create them for
> it's thinking it's being installed for the first time. That does remove
> overhead for a more special configuration of first and update install.
> So the clean "fix" is to remove all but one symlink (which will be a K99
> or so) to have this made working.

Or just put 'exit 0' at the top of /etc/init.d/klogd, or whatever.

> In my idea the guest-vserver virtual package could/should provide as
> many services as we need to be "available, but not original daemons and
> then offer a debconf dialog to the user querying about all the other
> daemons to be shut off. Poking around /etc/rc*.d/[SK]* symlinks is valid
> from debconf as far as i know the policy in case you do that upon user
> request. Of course altering any symlinks except for our own without
> asking or even telling the user is out of the limits we should be
> staying within.

I really don't think we need a guest-vserver package. I'd rather
vserver provide empty hooks for the things needed in a 'normal' system,
but otherwise just let the admin take care of it.

> ...which would be a nice task for a vserver-guest virtual package
> including a fancy postinst script.

I don't like fancy postinst scripts. :)


Vserver mailing list

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Thu 30 Dec 2004 - 14:33:29 GMT by hypermail 2.1.3