Re: real LSB compliance
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:35:48AM -0400, email@example.com wrote:
> Creating a new directory for the LSB packages would mean segregating
> them off into a "ghetto", so that users would have to type something
> else (say, /etc/lsb-init.d/oracle), where most other things would have
> been /etc/init.d. The same reasoning is why we didn't simply require
> all lsb-compliant packages to use an "lsb-" prefix. It didn't seem
> fair to force LSB packages to use a new and awkward namespace,
> especially when that namespace was going to be user-visible.
see I dont agree on this point, it is not a ghetto, for all the LSB packages
people will have to learn new names for things in init.d, what is the problem
with prepending lsb-? After all it will be a nice way to see which lsb
packages are daemons and such.
Also users dont use /etc/init.d on the whole, sysadmins do. It would make
everything less of a head ache to look after and easier all around if lsb
packages could just use an appropriate name with lsb- on the front. After all
look at the case of other thigns that need to be registered, such as
devices in the kernel that hpa looks after or heck stuff IANA looks after in
general. Why create a general administrative headache when lsb- on the front
would simplify everything.
When writing software that depends on lsb stuff you will have to write it to
use the lsb libraries and link with them rather than others on the
systems. This is just as big an issue as having to remember lsb- in init
scripts. Why not be consistant with how such conflicts between LSB and the
distribution's name spaces are resolved through out the LSB.
Look Up In The Sky
Is it a bird? No
Is it a plane? No
Is it a small blue banana?