[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status in init.d (was: Re: init script config files)



On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 12:46:30AM -0400, Christopher W. Curtis wrote:

> 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.''

i hope debian is doing exactly that, the .deb format is more
extensible and more importantly nothing remarkable, just an ar archive
with some tarballs.  i can extract a deb with unmodified standard
tools unlike .rpm.

> You seem to have a blinding hatred of RedHat.

redhat is just about as bad as Windows.

> Debian is a member of the LSB.

then i hope they are influential enough to shape the LSB into
something sensible instead of just a mirror of a redhat setup.

> > 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.

oh thats attractive.  why not change the LSB to do it the right way
(ie no rc.d) /etc/rc.d is a redhatism.  (and a stupid one at that)

> It is also useful for remote administration and clustering.

funny ssh does just fine without all the bloat and cruft.

> 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.

debian should not blindly follow some standard just because its
there.  debian should just concentrate on doing things right and in
the most efficient and clean way possible.  follow the standards so
long as it does not conflict with that goal.  as soon as the standard
requires debian to do something lame or deficient the standard should
be changed or ignored.

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

Attachment: pgp9IQH4HX9_M.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: