Bug 230962

Summary:	chkconfig sets setup link order incorrectly in the presence of an LSB block
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4	Reporter:	Monty Taylor <monty>
Component:	chkconfig	Assignee:	Bill Nottingham <notting>
Status:	CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	4.4	CC:	harald, rvokal
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-09-18 19:36:28 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Monty Taylor 2007-03-05 03:54:34 UTC

Description of problem:

If you have an init script that contains a chkconfig line and an LSB init info
block, chkconfig will install the init script, but will incorrectly make startup
and shutdown links, ignoring any ordering information. 


How reproducible:

Everytime.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Make an init script with both a chkconfig line and an LSB line. (you can get
one like this from the drbd or the heartbeat source, as an example) For sake of
argument, let's take the one from drbd. The chkconfig line looks like this:
# chkconfig: 345 70 8
2. Install it into /etc/init.d
3. chkconfig --add drbd
4. ls /etc/rc3.d/S70drbd
  
Actual results:

There is nothing there. S99drbd exists instead

Expected results:

The link should be S70drbd

Additional info:

If the ### BEGIN INIT INFO block is removed, and then chkconfig --del drbd ;
chkconfig --add drbd is run, the links are created correctly. 

This is not a problem with drbd. It works for any init script like this.

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2007-03-07 20:57:17 UTC

What's the LSB line for the init script look like?

I suspect it has:

# Required-Start:   $network

and you have a NetworkManager init script that starts at 99, and has:

# Provides: $network

Ergo, it's honoring the dependency.

Comment 2 Monty Taylor 2007-03-08 02:46:37 UTC

Unfortunately, no... 

BUT... you made me rethink the situation and I agree now that this is not a bug.
There is no dependency that requires the script to start any earlier than S99,
so that's when it starts. I guess part of me was expecting it to go into the
order soon after its dependencies were satisfied - but that is not the case.

I'll get the initscripts that have been bothering me to get fixed. 

thanks for the response!

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2007-03-08 18:53:50 UTC

If there's no dependency, it should start at 50, not 99. Can you attach the script?

Comment 4 Harald Hoyer 2007-03-15 07:15:52 UTC

if there is no dependency, couldn't the old priority information be taken
instead of 50?

Comment 5 Bill Nottingham 2007-03-15 14:07:58 UTC

That was fixed for bug #172599; that should be in the RHEL 5 version.

Comment 6 Bill Nottingham 2007-09-18 19:36:28 UTC

Since there are insufficient details provided in this report for us to
investigate the issue further, and we have not received the feedback we
requested, we will assume the problem was not reproduceable or has been fixed in
a later update for this product.

Users who have experienced this problem are encouraged to upgrade to the latest
update release, and if this issue is still reproduceable, please contact the Red
Hat Global Support Services page on our website for technical support options:
https://www.redhat.com/support