Bug#711853: insserv: Design bug: rcN.d unstable and not, maintainable

Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Thu Apr 18 17:26:58 BST 2019

On Thu 18/Apr/2019 12:24:25 +0200 Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> [2019-04-17 18:02] Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it>
>> I recall having seen all links renumbered as 01, 02, 03, ...  On the machine
>> I'm writing from now --a client where the boot sequence was never tampered
>> with-- links are numbered with gaps.  I see several 01's, a single 02, then 14,
>> 16, ...  Perhaps unconditional renumbering was changed since I posted that bug?
> On my system no gaps: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 in rc2.d/

When programming in Basic, I was advised to number lines as 10, 20, 30, ..., so
as to ease insertions without having to renumber everything.  Yes, that was
before Dijkstra's invective against goto's, but since you mentioned manually
editing text segments...

>> To edit LSB headers may make sense for one's own scripts.  Arbitrary
>> insserv overrides don't seem to be the right thing to do... Or is it
>> customary?
> If you have special needs -- it is okay. If ordering is wrong -- report
> bug. The whole idea of Debian is to ship things that work.

Sounds good.

>> Bottom line, I've been trying to recover some of the flexibility we
>> had before LSB's. I know that train has left many years ago...
> To be honest, I have rather basic knowledge, how things worked before
> LSB. But as you describe it, manual moving symlinks feels like manual
> editing output of `gcc'.

Actually, it was much easier.  It usually boiled down to an /early/ vs  /late/
decision, which was easily answered after reading the man page.  Nowadays,
daemons are started as soon as you install them, without even having a glance
at their configuration.


More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list