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

Re: LSB Spec 1.0 Criticism



> Why can't ISV's rely on /proc being mounted?

Well for one us evil kernel types might change the format. For a second it
might not even be Linux but a different host OS running compatibility code.

> LSB compliant distributions include that in the default path? If we're
> using /opt for most stuff, shouldn't there also be an /etc/opt/init.d
> directory for LSB packages' init scripts, so they don't step on the toes
> of init scripts from the distribution? This would allow LANANA to have
> somewhat freer reign in giving out names and such for init scripts.

Interesting and rather good (if belated) idea.

> Why is it expected that applications will need to write to
> /var/mail/<username>? Should, say, OpenOffice.lsb fail to work because
> I put my mail in ~/mail in maildir format?

Packages need default assumptions about how mail is delivered. Remember the
ISV may be installing mail agents, pop, imap servers or even an MTA
such as sendmail.com's sendmail

> Why are runlevels specified? If I choose to run a system that doesn't use
> runlevels, why should ISV's software break? If I choose to give different
> meanings to the first 6 runlevels, why should ISV's software break?

You can use whatever runlevels you like so long as you remap the runlevels
the LSB programs talk about to your own.




Reply to: