Re: Status in init.d (was: Re: init script config files)
Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2000 at 11:05:12PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the *current* LSB standards has that status thingie in it.
>
> LSB also wants to use RPM i guess we better plan on throwing out dpkg
> and apt-get eh?
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/spec/chap02.html
``The current "plan-of-record" is to specify RPM as the file format. ...
no one has pointed out any deficiencies. If you don't like this, then
please propose an alternative.''
You seem to have a blinding hatred of RedHat.
> frankly from what i have seen of the LSB they are including FAR too
> much redhat non-standardisms. if they want to create a fucked up
> standard then LSB be damned i hope debian ignores it.
Debian is a member of the LSB.
> if LSB wants us to use that stupid redhat esque /etc/rc.d/init.d
> instead of /etc/init.d will we do that? i hope not. if LSB wants us to
A malady cured with a symlink.
> > Yes, you can. Automated tools, however, could probably benefit greatly of an
> > accurate (and consistant) status function (which is supposedly tailored to
> > detect if a certain daemon is either running or dead in the most accurate
> > way it can be done for that particular daemon)...
>
> bloat. IMNSHO this will be the decline of GNU/Linux, where
> complicated bloat will be littered about to make it easier on the eye
> candy programs and idiot wrappers. as far as im concerned those
It is also useful for remote administration and clustering.
> screw the LSB then, i don't want debian to be ruined just to comply
> with some dubious `standard'
Without at least a hat tip (no pun intended) to the LSB, you relegate
Debian to niche markets only, unless you intend Debian to take on the
burden of replacing standard solutions to debianized ones.
Christopher
Reply to: