[Pkg-acpi-devel] Bug#502613: Bug#501662: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] Bug#501662: hal: incorrect upgrade management for removal of runlevel links

[Martin Pitt]

Michael Biebl [2008-10-18 14:09 +0200]:
> Kel Modderman wrote:
> > if dpkg --compare-versions "$installed" lt-nl "$version"; then
> > 	rm -f /etc/rc[06].d/K??$script
> > fi

That looks okay. One could even go as far as replacing the ?? with the
default priority, but I don't think it should be done.

> This would work for insserv and sysv-rc, but not file-rc (but I don't
> care too much about file-rc, tbh. And the popcon stats of file-rc do not
> justify any special treatment of file-rc imho).

Agreed. Since this is purely an optimization step, not having an
effect with file-rc is nothing to be concerned about.

> It also doesn't take into account any local modifications to the stop
> priorities (when using sysv-rc alone). We are thus not 100% policy
> compliant,  but I think we can ignore that in that special case.

Right, see what I wrote above. But since we don't need stop priorities
at all in these cases, removing them is valid on upgrades IMHO.

> The major complain I got on debian-release (when we discussed the same
> topic for avahi-daemon) was, that the "update-rc.d remove" approach
> didn't preserve disabled services, which the above method would do (i.e.
> services which were disabled before the upgrade were enabled again
> afterwards).

Right, I never accepted those either.

> So in summary, I think the suggested method above would indeed be the
> best we can do atm.

I agree.

Thanks,

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-acpi-devel/attachments/20081019/cb3fd20f/attachment.pgp