On ven, 2005-04-01 at 23:25 +0200, christophe varoqui wrote: > On ven, 2005-04-01 at 22:19 +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 11:09:04PM +0200, christophe varoqui wrote: > > > Do we really want to do complicated things to close that window ? I > > > would guess not. > > > > In other words, if the paths can't survive the window between initrd > > running and init scripts completing, the machine doesn't deserve to boot. > > > > And if you want the daemon in single-user mode, you can start it by hand. > > > > Fair point. > > > > So is there ever a requirement to run the daemon while /var is read-only? > > > I personnality guess not, but Debian people already got annoyed by that. > Don't how they handled it in the end. > Alasdair, Would it ease your packaging work if I put this init script as multipathd/multipathd.init.redhat ? I could also rename the current multipathd/multipathd.init to multipathd/multipathd.init.debian and stop installing it in the 'install' make target. Debian people, and other distro packagers, may express their views too. I also would like to kick off the debate on libsysfs and libdevmapper klibc versions packaging, as I removed these libs from the multipath-tools package and thus broke the klibc building framework. What needs to be done to have libdevmapper and libsysfs packages include their respective klibc build version ? What about klibc shared objects vs static ? Regards, -- christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx>
