Re: real LSB compliance
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
Sam> I.E. because I don't find registration to be particularly honorous and
Sam> because I believe having all scripts registered provides a superior
Sam> user experience than having either vendor init scripts not registered
Sam> or having third-party init scripts not registered,
How exactly does a bureaucratic process enhance user
experience? Having a global name space (and all the silly clashes
that can then ensue) is not really a great idea. (which is why one
tries to create separate namespaces while programming). However, is
the LSB wants to create a separate namespace, as shown by the prefix
lsb.01- or something, that would be fine. Vendors are already
responsible for keeping an init.d script name space mostly free from
collision (with exceptions -- two conflicting packages may indeed
have the same init.d script name)
Sam> I support registration. I was proposing the prefix as a way to
Sam> insure correctness in the case where the maintainer had not yet
Sam> registered a script. The argument there is that correctness is
Sam> more important than usability.
And I say that a global namespace for any and all third party
script names does not scale well, and I would object to imposing such
a restriction on developers. It is bad enough keeping script names
unique internally, having a potentially crowded extra-debian
namespace is unacceptable.
manoj
--
Where, oh, where, are you tonight? Why did you leave me here all
alone? I searched the world over, and I thought I'd found true
love. You met another, and *PPHHHLLLBBBBTTT*, you wuz gone. Gloom,
despair and agony on me. Deep dark depression, excessive misery. If
it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all. Oh, gloom, despair
and agony on me. Hee Haw
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: