Re: real LSB compliance
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 08:24:03PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > * They want LANA to assign names of init scripts, under the assumption, it
> > seems, that LSB init scripts should be able to have short and simple names,
> > while not conflicting with the names of any of the init scripts of any of
> > the distributions.
>
> 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. It's a good idea if distributions
> were to register their init scripts, since doing so effectively acts
> as a reservation to prevent ISV's from grabbing an init.d name. We've
> tried to pre-reserve a number of init script names which are in common
> use by many distributions, but that list is certainly not perfect.
>
> If someone provides me a list of all init.d names used by Debian, I
> will take care of making sure they are reserved so that LSB packages
> won't try to grab them.
just curious, why dont lsb based init scripts use a prepended lsb- on the
name?
you use lsb in the library filenames (and I must say I think this is a good
idea) why not also in most other lsb things (such as init scripts). There will
be no conflict between lsb-mood and mood, admittedly it may be somewhat
confusing. However if the packages actually do conflict such as lsb-nfsd and
nfsd one would assume that would be sorted out by the packaging system.
the lsb in the name of libraries really is a good idea for enabling lsb
versions of libraries to be installed concurrently with the rest of the
system, why not elsewhere?
See You
Steve
--
sjh@wibble.net http://wibble.net/~sjh/
Look Up In The Sky
Is it a bird? No
Is it a plane? No
Is it a small blue banana?
YES
Reply to: