Re: real LSB compliance

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "David" == David Schleef <ds@schleef.org> writes:

    David> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:01:26PM -0400, Sam Hartman
    David> 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.


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


First I suspect that it is only for rc.d links.  Secondly, why are we
supporting LSB if not for our users?  If LSB is actually useful to our
users, and I believe that if we participate in future revisions of the
spec it may well be very good for our users, then they will likely
want LSB packages to fit well into the Debian architecture.  Having
init.d script names mangled and placed in a special directory would
annoy me as a user; I would rather see Debian participate in the
registry.

Also, consider that we do not want to make LSB packages be forced into
being a bag on the side of Debian or any other distribution.  If a
software author can get sufficiently better integration by packaging
directly for Redhat than for LSB, then they may very well do so.  If
this happens a lot, we will have done our users a disservice by
helping to make LSB a sufficiently unattractive option  that software
is not available for LSB.


Init scripts are a sysadmin-visible interface, so we want to make them
work well.