Re: real LSB compliance

[David Schleef <ds@schleef.org>]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:01:26PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur Korn <arthur@korn.ch> writes:
> 
>     Arthur> Hi Sam Hartman schrieb:
>     >> 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
> 
>     Arthur> I don't like it. This whole "register every init script
>     Arthur> name" stuff sounds far too bureaucratic to me. IMO there
>     Arthur> should only be namespaces registered for init scripts,
>     Arthur> with the distribution being assigned the default
>     Arthur> namespace. So for debian there would be:
> 
> As Joey pointed out, LSB didn't use prefixes for init script names
> because they believed people would be annoyed if init script names
> were too long/had prefixes.  If you want people to consider your
> suggestion seriously, you should get the distributions to agree that
> prefixes are OK, or in some other way demonstrate that their concern
> was unjustified.


If LSB specifies that a distro-supplied install script is used to
install/uninstall /etc/init.d scripts, does it really matter?  The
install script could mangle the name as necessary.  (Or does the
install script only pertain to /etc/rc.d/ links?)



dave...