Re: real LSB compliance
Previously Theodore Tso wrote:
> Umm... where does it say that it's OK to use bashisms? In the init
> functions section it states that the *distribution* *provided*
> *aliases* may take advantage of bash extensions, the init.d functions
> provided by LSB-compliant applications should only depend on POSIX.2
> /bin/sh features.
Other section, on what /bin/sh should be. I don't have the doc at
hand here so I can't quote the section.
> Actually, technically we don't *require* that distributions assign the
> name of init scripts. We require that LSB compliant application
> assign the name of init scripts.
What puzzles me is that the policy used there is wildly different from the
policy used for package names. It would make sense if we specify that LSB
complient applications should prefix their init scripts with lsb- with same
rules and exception as used for package names (in fact the init script
should have the same name as the package that contains it imho).
> Finally, we tried very hard to make the standard a good one. We had a
> month-long comment period, and we tried hard to get people to look at
> it and send us comments. Unfortunately, many folks didn't choose to
> participate or to read and send us comments until after LSB 1.0 was
> finalized.
Guilty as charged. However it does surprise me that noone notices that
LANANA is called LANA about half the times through the document.
Wichert.
--
_________________________________________________________________
/ Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \
| wichert@wiggy.net http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Reply to: