[4207] in RedHat Linux List
Re: /etc/rc.d/rc.local question (and Red Hat rant)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael K. Johnson)
Wed Nov 13 11:05:43 1996
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
From: "Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm@redhat.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:12:30 +0900."
<199611131412.XAA05753@mail.sphere.ad.jp>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:00:36 -0500
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
"Lance Cummings" writes:
>No, I didn't zero it myself.
OK, just wanted to make sure. It's on my list to look into.
In the meantime, it should be fixed by removing the file
entirely and re-installing the latest version of initscripts.
Since you've already installed it, you will have to use
--force.
>>We've tried to put ordering constraints of which we are aware
>>in there. We have applied them to our own machines in roughly
>
>I appreciate this information. But <g> could you explain the
>meaning of the word "roughly" in this situation? Does the
>expression "half pregnant" come to anyone else's mind?
We upgrade our own machines, and do so as we see the need.
Therefore, different machines are upgraded in different
orders. They generally follow an order similar to that
in the Errata.
>Hmmmm. I'm sorry but the pam upgrade is called
>for in step two. But when you arrive at step 32 you see that --
>horrors -- there were some deletions that are called for before
>the pam upgrade was to be installed.
The reason that it doesn't have a pointer to the patch to apply
is that it should be applied as listed below. It says to look
below.
I'm not blaming you, by the way -- just explaining that we aren't
quite as dumb as we look. We do understand that the Errata could
be improved; we just want to make sure any change we make is really
an improvement.
>say wait 4-5 days. When nothing comes in more than two weeks,
>people wonder. I'm sure you can understand that. Better to say
>two-three weeks from the get go, don't you think?
If we knew it would be over two weeks, we would have said so.
>I hope you guys will think about laying out the docs a little
>bit better for newbies, though. The errata really is a bit of a
>horror show for newbies -- especially when things don't go
>1 - 2 - 3. I don't think too many people who are new to Linux
>are gonna argue with this. Suggestion: List according to update,
>not according to fix on the errata. Or better, list both ways.
>But listing by update, with the multiple fixes below might make
>things clearer to newbies. And it might also help you guys to
>arrange the installations so they don't conflict with each other.
>(BTW, it was netcfg that glint barfed on at step 5. I kept trying
>it after each subsequent update as I went down the list, but it
>wouldn't go in until I installed pythonlib at step 17. HTH.)
Thank you for the suggestions. We'll be trying to improve the
Errata on this point. It may take a bit, since we don't want to
screw them up while attempting to improve them...
michaelkjohnson
"Ever wonder why the SAME PEOPLE make up ALL the conspiracy theories?"
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
