Re: real LSB compliance
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <email@example.com> writes:
Sam> As Joey pointed out, LSB didn't use prefixes for init script names
Sam> because they believed people would be annoyed if init script names
Sam> were too long/had prefixes. If you want people to consider your
Sam> suggestion seriously, you should get the distributions to agree that
Sam> prefixes are OK, or in some other way demonstrate that their concern
Sam> was unjustified.
It would be far better if non vendor LSB conformant add ons
were the ones which had a mandatory prefix. I suspect that lsb.2001-
would'nt be a common prefix for init files in most distributions.
Rationale: on most machines, there are way more vendor init
scripts than there are third party init scripts.
The garden is in mourning; The rain falls cool among the
flowers. Summer shivers quietly On its way towards its end. Golden
leaf after leaf Falls from the tall acacia. Summer smiles,
astonished, feeble, In this dying dream of a garden. For a long
while, yet, in the roses, She will linger on, yearning for peace, And
slowly Close her weary eyes. Hermann Hesse, "September"
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C