On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 10:56:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > Getting LSB 3.0 support in Debian sounds like a great idea. Lets make > Forget it. > Full LSB 3.0 support implies mucking with the initscript names. That won't > happen. We can certainly do something so that no clashes happen, such as > shunting all initscripts from LSB somewhere else than /etc/init.d, or adding > "lsb-" to the front of all of them (my favourite solution). Can't shunt them; the LSB specifies that if an LSB package provides an init script, it must be installed in /etc/init.d[0]. Can mangle the names; the LSB only specifies the namespace rules that the LSB applications must follow[1], and we make no claims that our own packages are LSB-compliant packages (the fact that they aren't rpm's is the first hint), only that we are trying to provide an LSB-compliant environment. So since the latter seems to be perfectly LSB-compliant, I don't see any reason not to do this. Someone ought to get the LSB future-proofed on our behalf, though. :P > And this crap happens for the cron scripts too. Yeah, but neither cron scripts nor init scripts should be invoked *by* LSB packages, so dynamically renaming them ought to work just fine and be compliant with the letter of the LSB. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/ [0] http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/initsrcinstrm.html [1] http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/etc.html#FHS-NAME-RULES
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature