Bug 106193

On Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 3 (Taroon) links in /etc/rc?.d
will be installed by /usr/lib/lsb/install_intd /etc/init.d/foo but
with start and stop priority -1, e.g.
/etc/rc0.d/K-1foo -> ../init.d/foo
/etc/rc3.d/S-1foo -> ../init.d/foo

According to lsb_release output this distribution claims to be LSB 1.3
compliant, so it should install startup scripts according to LSB
specification.

On Redhat Enterprise ES 3 I am seeing a similar problem.

However, with my own initscript I am not seeing the behavior of start
and stop priority "-1" symlinks being created at all, regardless of
whether I use install_initd or "chkconfig --add scriptname" directly.
 My init script even includes both the old style and new LSB style
comments in it:

# chkconfig: 35 99 28
# description: Sample program

### BEGIN INIT INFO
# Default-Start:  3 5
# Default-Stop:   0 1 3 5 6
# Short-Description:  Sample program
# Description:  Sample program
### END INIT INFO

I think bug 85678 may fix this, for which an errata for both RHEL 2.1
and RHEL 3.0 has already been released.

Can you reproduce this with the errata version?

I've just installed the errata, and it seems that having both types of
comment blocks in the same initscript confuses chkconfig somehow. 
With the lines from comment 2 in a sample initscript, I only see these
symlinks created:

/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K28foo

When I remove the old style comment and leave ONLY the LSB style, I
see these links created:

/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K50foo
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K50foo
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/S50foo
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/K50foo
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/S50foo
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K50foo
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K50foo

Repositioning the old style comments below the LSB block doesn't seem
to help.  Removing the LSB block and leaving ONLY the old style block:

/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc1.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc2.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S99foo
/etc/rc.d/rc4.d/K28foo
/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S99foo
/etc/rc.d/rc6.d/K28foo

It would be nice to be able to allow both styles of comments in the
same file so that my startup script can be compatible with multiple
distributions.

FYI, the original report mentioned in comment #1 does not repro for me
using the errata version:

[root@moltar root]# /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd /etc/init.d/foo
[root@moltar root]# chkconfig --list foo
foo             0:off   1:off   2:off   3:on    4:on    5:on    6:off

but my comment #5 still stands.

Created attachment 109733 [details]
patch for the issue mentioned

This patch makes LSB comments take precendence always over '# ckhconfig:'
lines.

Created attachment 109769 [details]
better patch

Is there an estimate for when that patch will be committed?

It's currently scheduled for the next update releases.

I'm still seeing some issues with initscripts-7.93.13.EL-1.i386 on RHEL4.  With
the initscript from comment 2, I'm getting the following after running
install_initd:

# chkconfig --list foo
foo             0:off   1:off   2:off   3:off   4:off   5:off   6:off

# ls /etc/rc*/*foo
/etc/rc0.d/K28foo  /etc/rc2.d/K28foo  /etc/rc4.d/K28foo  /etc/rc6.d/K28foo
/etc/rc1.d/K28foo  /etc/rc3.d/K28foo  /etc/rc5.d/K28foo

The initscript in comment 2 says:

### BEGIN INIT INFO
# Default-Start:  3 5
# Default-Stop:   0 1 3 5 6

The default-stop is overriding the default-start.

Jay, which version of chkconfig are you using?

I really should have noticed that . . . sorry, I'm an idiot.  I'll retest with
correct initscripts.  Also not really sure why I posted the initscripts version
above.  I suspect I'm going to find that I updated the wrong package.

chkconfig-1.3.13.2-1 makes things all better and is included in the latest
U1-candidate builds.

An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-115.html

That errata is for ES 2.1; will there be an errata for ES 3 also (and maybe ES 4)?