should inetd require rpcbind?

[Edgar Fuß]

When RPC-based entries are enabled, inetd must be started after rpcbind.

Currently, this seems to happen by chance because inetd REQUIREs DAEMON,
and nfslocking is BEFORE: DAEMON and REQUIREs nfsd, which, in turn REQUIREs
rpcbind.

So, should inetd directly REQUIRE rpcbind?
Should nfslocking also explicitly REQUIRE rpcbind?

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de

[Michael Richardson]

ef> When RPC-based entries are enabled, inetd must be started after
ef> rpcbind.

okay.

ef> Currently, this seems to happen by chance because inetd REQUIREs
ef> DAEMON,
ef> and nfslocking is BEFORE: DAEMON and REQUIREs nfsd, which, in
ef> turn REQUIREs
ef> rpcbind.

but, if I want to run inetd without RPC entries, I'd rather that rpcbind
didn't start, and that it wasn't required to be installed.

ef> So, should inetd directly REQUIRE rpcbind?

If rpcbind isn't installed, or isn't started, will this cause it to fail?

ef> Should nfslocking also explicitly REQUIRE rpcbind?

Yes.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] ***@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video

then sign the petition.

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de

[Robert Elz]

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:31:01 -0400
From: Michael Richardson <***@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <***@obiwan.sandelman.ca>

| but, if I want to run inetd without RPC entries, I'd rather that rpcbind
| didn't start, and that it wasn't required to be installed.

Not relevant to what he suggested.

| ef> So, should inetd directly REQUIRE rpcbind?
| If rpcbind isn't installed, or isn't started, will this cause it to fail?

No. The REQUIRE lines (etc) just order the rc.d scripts, they have
no impact on what is started, one way or the other, just when you have
stuff enabled, the order in which they're started.

As I understand it the suggestion was just to make explicit what
happens anyway, which should do no harm, and might just avoid
later problems if someone updates things and the current ordering
changes.

kre

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de

[Edgar Fuß]

Sent fron the wrong account, please ignore any Reply-To: accidently included.

--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-***@muc.de