From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [PATCH] opensm/configure.in: Remove Default-Start from opensmd init script Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 17:05:25 +0100 Message-ID: <510FDC45.1000303@acm.org> References: <20130129171850.GB2961@calypso.mtl.com> <5108E0F6.3060602@acm.org> <51093F8E.10905@redhat.com> <51094393.1060102@acm.org> <51095CD5.80503@redhat.com> <51097080.9000402@acm.org> <5109737F.70101@redhat.com> <20130131072100.GU2961@calypso.mtl.com> <510A7DAF.60802@redhat.com> <20130204153631.GC13151@calypso.mtl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130204153631.GC13151-iQai9MGU/dze+A/uUDamNg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alex Netes Cc: Doug Ledford , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 02/04/13 16:36, Alex Netes wrote: > On 09:20 Thu 31 Jan , Doug Ledford wrote: >> On 01/31/13 02:21, Alex Netes wrote: >>> On 14:24 Wed 30 Jan , Doug Ledford wrote: >>>> On 1/30/2013 2:12 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>>> On 01/30/13 18:48, Doug Ledford wrote: >>>>>> On 1/30/2013 11:00 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>>>>> Which convention is followed for other packages ? This is what I >>>>>>> found in >>>>>>> the Fedora 18 iscsi-initiator-utils package >>>>>>> (http://be.mirror.eurid.eu/fedora/linux/releases/18/Fedora/source/SRPMS/i/iscsi-initiator-utils-6.2.0.872-19.fc18.src.rpm): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * iscsid.init: Default-Start: 3 4 5 >>>>>>> * iscsi-initiator-utils.spec: >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, first off, any package that still uses the SysV initscripts as of >>>>>> Fedora 18 is not what I would call a package that is keeping up with the >>>>>> Fedora packaging guidelines or Fedora technologies. As such, I'm not >>>>>> really sure you want to use it as an example of a good package. >>>>>> However, that being said, you will note in this spec file that the iSCSI >>>>>> initiator package does exactly what you removed, or suggested be >>>>>> removed, from the opensmd spec file. It unilaterally adds the >>>>>> initscript to the system. The default start/stop settings are >>>>>> different, but the add action is the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> All initscripts should be added to the system, regardless of their >>>>>> default start/stop settings, and the default-start and default-stop >>>>>> should be used to control *how* they are added by default, and chkconfig >>>>>> --level .* [on|off] should be used to control whether or >>>>>> not they are on or off differently than their default settings. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply. Regarding the purpose of the patch at the >>>>> start of this thread: do you know whether it is LSB-compliant to use >>>>> "Default-Start: null" or should "Default-Start" be left out entirely in >>>>> order not to create the start links ? See e.g. >>>>> http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/initscrcomconv.html. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bart. >>>> >>>> I've always used "Default-start:" without any listed levels, but I >>>> haven't really tested it either and the spec is not specific about this >>>> particular possible configuration. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It's how the script was defined before. The behavior on RHEL and SLES is >>> different when not specifying "Default-start:". On RHEL, `chkconfig opensmd on` >>> adds the service to the default runlevels: 2 3 4 5. While on SLES it doesn't. >> >> That sounds like a bug in SLES to be honest. chkconfig opensmd on >> without --levels should follow the Default-Start: item (just like >> chkconfig add opensmd). >> > > I think that RHEL and SLES implemented chkconfig differently. From man page of > chkconfig on RHEL: "By default, the on and off options affect only > runlevels 2, 3, 4, and 5". While in SLES nothing is mentioned regarding the > defaults. > It's not acceptable to load opensm by default on boot, so I don't see other > choice right now except of reverting commit 01ab74450fd1227cf2dfb9219ffd697d3beb4a45 > or doing something similar of what I suggested at the start of the thread. But why has commit 01ab744 to be reverted ? All that's needed to avoid that chkconfig gets enabled at boot during RPM installation is something like the patch at the top of this thread. Unless I'm overlooking something ? Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html