[4269] in RedHat Linux List
Re: /etc/rc.d/rc.local question (and Red Hat rant)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lance Cummings)
Wed Nov 13 18:27:14 1996
From: "Lance Cummings" <lance@iac.co.jp>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:16:45 +0900
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:00:36 -0500
"Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm@redhat.com> wrote:
>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.
Could you be a little more specific? I'm afraid I don't have
any expertise in Unix or Linux at all, and so I would have little idea
how to go about forcing a Linux program or app to do something
it doesn't want to do at this point. I would like to get the file back,
however, "if* I need it. I'm not even clear about that. (I think you
can see where some of my frustration comes from.)
>>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.
It says "(a more recent update is below)".
Unfortunately, there is not so much as a hint that one should
alter the installation sequence. Well . . . maybe the lack of
a pointer is a hint for some, but the number "2" overrode
such a notion for me. Everyone's different, I guess. Still, I
think you could make it crystal clear in a couple of minutes
or so with an HTML editor.
>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.
And I'm not saying you look dumb. Honest. But nobody wants
to wait 2-3 weeks to install the upgrades until someone can hold
their hand. So since hand-holding isn't an option, the errata
should be a comfortably easy document to read. Like I said, you've
got a lot of newbies coming in, and that document is one of the
first hurdles they need to clear. Just set the bar a little lower.
If an install needs to be done out of the 1 - 2 - 3 sequence,
please *say* so -- specifically.
>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...
Understood. Now would you answer a quick question or two for
me? 1) All the errata updates got in eventually, but as I had
indicated, netcfg was a problem. It did go in eventually, though.
How can I test the system to make sure everything is okay?
2) How can I use "force" as you indicated I might have to above,
and is this missing file where I need to insert a line to make
the color option permanant? (If so, will inserting the line on
page 60 of the User's Guide do the dirty deed?)
TIA,
Lance
--
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
