Proposed release goal for Squeeze: Switch to dependency based boot sequencing

Michael Biebl biebl at
Mon Apr 20 16:11:24 UTC 2009

Kel Modderman wrote:
> On Saturday 18 April 2009 03:46:04 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>>>> I think, one missing piece is a proper interface for updating init
>>>>> script priorities (if the depencies or the list of runlevel changes) in
>>>>> a policy compliant way.
>>>> There is no such interface in this case (if we had one, insserv would have
>>>> to make it a no-op).  You have to edit the initscript metadata directly
>>>> (because it is embedded in comment headers on the initscript itself) to do
>>>> such changes, then tell the system to rebuild the initscript dependency
>>>> tree.
>>> How do you do that exactly while preserving local modifications?
>> The local modifications have to be done on the initscript headers, which are
>> conffiles since the dawn of time.  The user is warned that by switching to a
>> dependency-based initscript system, the old order information is deemed
>> irrelevant and thus completely ignored.
>> There is also an override directory that can be used to change the
>> dependency headers instead of editing the initscript, but we should get rid
>> of any need to ship files in there as part of the release goal (local admin
>> can place stuff there as he wishes).
>> So, you can have local modifications to the *DEPENDENCY* information in an
>> override directory.
> I'm pretty sure there is a misunderstanding here. An interface for modifying
> unmodified script properties (such as what runlevels it starts/stops) is
> desirable for use in package maintainer scripts when a new version of the
> package wishes to change the scripts start/stop or sequence/dependency
> properties. That is what Michael is poking us about.
> An interface for this was proposed for legacy (aka sysv-rc's) update-rc.d:
> The discussion went cold after Michael posited that the proposed interface is
> prone to error because it relies on a human to write out a snippet of shell
> code in a maintainer script. A similar interface could exist for insserv's
> update-rc.d. I am without any better ideas at this time.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I tried to say (thanks Kel for the clarification)

For the record, I don't want it to be understood as I'm against insserv.
To the contrary: as we are already 95% there, it would imho be stupid to not
make use of it and reap the benefits (though I still think we need something
more flexible/dynamic long term, the improvements by insserv are nice for the
short term).
I'd even be in favour of dropping the static priorities interface (and file-rc
for that matter), as it would make our lives as maintainers much simpler.


Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the initscripts-ng-devel mailing list