Re: real LSB compliance
>>>>> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
Sam> As Joey pointed out, LSB didn't use prefixes for init script
Sam> names because they believed people would be annoyed if init
Sam> script names were too long/had prefixes. If you want people
Sam> to consider your suggestion seriously, you should get the
Sam> distributions to agree that prefixes are OK, or in some other
Sam> way demonstrate that their concern was unjustified.
Manoj> It would be far better if non vendor LSB conformant
Manoj> add ons were the ones which had a mandatory prefix. I
Manoj> suspect that lsb.2001- would'nt be a common prefix for init
Manoj> files in most distributions.
Manoj> Rationale: on most machines, there are way more vendor
Manoj> init scripts than there are third party init scripts.
Agreed. However, I find my suggestion preferable because it means
that in the general case (both vendor and third-party scripts
registered) no scripts need an annoying prefix.
I.E. because I don't find registration to be particularly honorous and
because I believe having all scripts registered provides a superior
user experience than having either vendor init scripts not registered
or having third-party init scripts not registered, I support
registration. I was proposing the prefix as a way to insure
correctness in the case where the maintainer had not yet registered a
script. The argument there is that correctness is more important than
usability.
Reply to: