Re: real LSB compliance
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Joey Hess 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.
> This is IMHO very problimatic. While LANA will presumably assign all the
> standard init script names like cron and gpm and so on to the obvious and
> correct daemons (and indeed there is a long list of pre-assigned names like
> that in the usb), it limits debian's flexability, and it means that if a
> developer wants to make a package with some wild and strange and little known
> daemon[1], they would have to apply to LANA first, or give the script the
> disgusting named "debian.org-<foo>" or Debian would become LSB-non-compliant
> again. Yuck. This is IMHO the worst intrustion into the distribution's
> territory by the LSB. They should have just required LSB init scripts be
> prefixed with lsb- ...
Does the LSB allow vendors to depend on being able to invoke those startup
scripts using LANA names? If not -- if, e.g., the only place LSB packages
will be calling the startup scripts directly will be in the maintainer scripts
-- then it's a simple scripting matter to rewrite the names of those startup
scripts at the time of installation so that we /can/ use lsb-* for the script
names. May not be the intention of the spec's authors, but it would be a
reasonably pragmatic solution.
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: