1 |
On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:43 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant Edwards |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> # Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the |
5 |
>> dependency # or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example, |
6 |
>> if net.eth0 # and net.eth1 are in the default runlevel then with |
7 |
>> rc_depend_strict="NO" # both will be started, but services that depend on |
8 |
>> 'net' will work if either # one comes up. With rc_depend_strict="YES" we |
9 |
>> would require them both to # come up. |
10 |
>> #rc_depend_strict="YES" |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> I had assumed that since the line setting it to YES was commented out |
13 |
>> that the default was NO, and you uncommented the line to set it to |
14 |
>> YES. I don't know where that belief came from, but it's wrong -- the |
15 |
>> commented out line apparently shows the default. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Yes, that stuff can get confusing and it's easy to get it mixed up. |
18 |
|
19 |
I had that stuck pretty firmly in my head, so there must have been |
20 |
something I was working with recently which did things the other way |
21 |
'round where uncommenting lines caused behavior to change. |
22 |
|
23 |
> The way it's done is the only really sane way - consider how it would |
24 |
> play out if the setting was a value or a list of possibilities - you |
25 |
> couldn't put a commented example in there that is the opposite of the |
26 |
> default |
27 |
|
28 |
True. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! It was a JOKE!! |
32 |
at Get it?? I was receiving |
33 |
gmail.com messages from DAVID |
34 |
LETTERMAN!! ! |