[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#375183: invoke-rc.d: Uses hardcoded path to policy-rc.d

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[Riku Voipio]
> OTOH, It does not break any existing behaviour, so IMHO
> documentation and file-rc (the only other package providing
> invoke-rc.d) can be updated later.

The documentation is pretty clear about the location of policy-rc.d:

  POLICY-RC.D   Policy layer (/usr/sbin/policy-rc.d) interface:
  =============================================================

  Most Debian systems will not have this script as the need for a
  policy layer is not very common. Most people using chroot jails just
  need an one-line script which returns an exit status of 101 as the
  jailed /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d script.

  The /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d file *must* be managed through the
  alternatives system (/usr/sbin/update-alternatives) by any packages
  providing it.

  /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d [options] <initscript ID> <actions> [<runlevel>]
  /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d [options] --list <initscript ID> [<runlevel> ...]

This make me believe that if update-rc.d is changed to allow other
locations, the documentation need to change a the same time.

[Lars Wirzenius 2006-06-24]
> This means that a sysadmin who wants to write a policy layer has to
> put it into /usr/sbin, instead of /usr/local/sbin. This seems
> suboptimal.

[Riku Voipio 2006-12-28]
> The reason of submitting this that we need it here now, and I'd hate
> to find out I need to reapply this change every time sysvinit gets
> updated.

These two comments are the only claims I find in the BTS report that
this change is _needed_, and neither explain why.  Can any of you
explain why it is needed?  Why can't the sysadmin make a package with
his own /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d?  I'm not against the change, but
believe the specification need to change and for that it would be
useful to have a clear rationale.

Happy hacking,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen