Re: real LSB compliance

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur Korn <arthur@korn.ch> writes:

    Arthur> Hi Sam Hartman schrieb:
    >> So, assuming we go the full LSB route, it might be a good idea
    >> to register a prefix like deb- for Debian.  If a package claims
    >> in its call to dh_installinit to have registered the init
    >> script name, then it uses the package supplied init script
    >> name.  Otherwise it uses

    Arthur> I don't like it. This whole "register every init script
    Arthur> name" stuff sounds far too bureaucratic to me. IMO there
    Arthur> should only be namespaces registered for init scripts,
    Arthur> with the distribution being assigned the default
    Arthur> namespace. So for debian there would be:

As Joey pointed out, LSB didn't use prefixes for init script names
because they believed people would be annoyed if init script names
were too long/had prefixes.  If you want people to consider your
suggestion seriously, you should get the distributions to agree that
prefixes are OK, or in some other way demonstrate that their concern
was unjustified.