Comment 3 for bug 493094
Revision history for this message
| Scott James Remnant (Canonical) (canonical-scott) wrote Re: [Bug 493094] Re: init: allow multiple 'on' statements | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 20:15 +0000, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> 1) The current behavior of start on completely violates the principle of
> least surprise. There is no situation in which "start on foo \n start on
> bar" will do something the user actually wants, which means the user
> will always get something they didn't expect. Having the job fail with
> multiple start ons would be better than what we have.
>
This is consistent with all other stanzas.
> 2) we've said we'll keep 0.6 compatibility. There's been a lot of talk
> of modes and detection and separating jobs, when really the best way to
> do that would be to just /don't remove start on and stop on/. Using them
> can set off all kinds of buzzers and alarms and "you're doing it wrong"
> notices, but just leaving them in completes our backward compatibility
> with little additional effort.
>
What's this got to do with anything?
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?