Re: real LSB compliance
Joey Hess wrote:
> * LSB says that nobody's group should be called "nobody", while we have
> "nogroup". Bah.
Why not just refrence these two by UID/GID numerically? Most dists use
the same numbers.
> * LSB requires bash as the shell, and allow use of at least some
bashisms.
> Well, that's default in debian, but it's trivial these days to
> install ash and make it the default shell. Does this mean that
> debian violates the LSB?
As long as LSB dictates that /bin/sh isn't bash, and that bashisims
should be directed to /bin/bash. (would be supernice if I could change
that to anything too. ie: /opt/local/gnu/bin/bash or some god-awful
solaris opt tree :) )
> * LSB defines runlevels, while we define 2-5 identically by default.
Isn't this a specific redhat-ism? I'm not impressed with using init to
handle xdm/gdm.
> scripts, if we support the LSB we will need a way to tell when these
> faclities are present so that whatever runs the lsb init scripts
> can do so. Or we can just run all lsb init scripts last in the
> boot sequence. :-P
Or adopt NetBSD's rc.d setup. There was a paper at USENIX/freenix about
it. It's pretty neat.
> * 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,
Since init scripts in rc?.d are just links, why not have a directory
called 'vendor' and have vendors create directories for their name of
their company under it and put their init scripts under it. Have the
vendor-dirs assigned instead to give them a namespace. Have the init
handling scripts handle namespace collisions at the rc?.d level. When
removing just look for the symlink that refrences the script your
looking for.
--
Scott Dier <dieman@ringworld.org> #linuxos@irc.openprojects.net
http://www.ringworld.org/ finger:dieman@destiny.ringworld.org
"Kupo, kupkup, kupopo... Po... Kupo!? KUPOPO!!!
<Chomp chomp> Kupooo."
-Moguta (FFIX)
Reply to: