From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olaf Hering Subject: Re: [PATCH] add LSB header to xen-watchdog runlevel script [and 1 more messages] Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:05:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20100726110553.GA2641@aepfle.de> References: <20100723121324.GB3540@aepfle.de> <19529.51008.134045.602693@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20100726092344.GS13291@whitby.uk.xensource.com> <20100723173620.GA7603@aepfle.de> <19529.55727.859057.248861@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20100723184317.GA9102@aepfle.de> <19533.24220.728908.880255@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <1280139362.5872.6932.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <19533.25085.23971.650621@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19533.25085.23971.650621@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 ? Ian, 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'. Olaf