[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] add LSB header to xen-watchdog runlevel script [and 1 more messages]
- To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:05:53 +0200
- Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:21:35 -0700
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1280142359; l=875; s=domk; d=aepfle.de; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Subject:Cc:To:From: Date:X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH; bh=zE3ohq6lzV/K2oCxKJwJXQ9StPY=; b=tVb0BjYL+KPKdZzDNpUDOCJr9mpcn+hcQslXn228bGuUBHmOg84YqCZzsp06alt3ZyP baVkE/qPKsVrnk6aZRSHtpz6t6JmV13NyFoxeTn4L0bbYEpUF+c57j5yTvysyD1FdfcaX ek9cgLdQAhdsmKfmHRMLIb4jmzwTTc4uKoI=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Mon, Jul 26, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] add LSB header to xen-watchdog
> runlevel script [and 1 more messages]"):
> > On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I meant: adding these lines would seem to be likely to cause some
> > > systems to automatically start the watchdog when previously they would
> > > not have done so. I wanted to know whether that was a good idea.
> > IMHO no -- enabling a watchdog should be an explicit admin action.
> So I conclude that you think the patch is wrong ?
the patch is not wrong. If it were, the chkconfig line had to be removed
as well. Both lines just tell the tools about the ordering in the
specifieed rulevels, when the admin actually wants to have the script
enabled by calling 'chkconfig -a xen-watchdog' or 'insserv watchdog'.
Xen-devel mailing list