Re: real LSB compliance

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Joey" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
    >> > * 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.
    >> 
    >> Actually, technically we don't *require* that distributions
    >> assign the name of init scripts.

    Joey> Is that because it's just a SHOULD? Can a distribution still
    Joey> claim LSB Implementation Conformance while violating a
    Joey> SHOULD?


    >> If someone provides me a list of all init.d names used by
    >> Debian, I will take care of making sure they are reserved so
    >> that LSB packages won't try to grab them.

    Joey> See attachment.

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
deb-packagename.  I believe that the goal of having short init script
names is reasonable, that it does require a registry to achieve and
that we should set up our standard practices not to violate this.  If
you were willing to do this, I would invision that most maintainers
would register their init script names, but having the default be
something guaranteed not to conflict if the maintainer had not yet
registered the script name would be useful.