On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:19 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote: > Precisely. What the original poster is asking for seems to be > equivalent to asking for state to be preserved in this case: > > chkconfig foo off > rpm -e foo > rpm -i foo-1-1.rpm Actually, I was only thinking about this case: chkconfig --del foo rpm -U foo*.rpm # or "yum update foo" Whatever the state, it is obviously lost across such a sweeping change like "rpm -e foo; rpm -i foo*.rpm". One cannot reasonably ask for the state to be preserved in that case. An upgrade, though, is different. I like Michael's idea. "rpm -i" should run chkconfig and do whatever is appropriate to enable/disable the service on certain runlevels, that's fine and natural. But "rpm -U" should do nothing in that regard. After all (I apologize for repeating it over and over again, but I think it's a crucial point), whatever the situation before the upgrade, it was very likely the result of a decision made and an action carried by the human operator. The software should not treat it lightly. I will also have to verify if it's true that certain cronjobs re-enable services that were deleted with chkconfig. That's potentially another source of issues. -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
