Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
On Feb 20, Adam Lazur wrote:
> Chris Lawrence (lawrencc@debian.org) said:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200202/msg01335.html
> >
> > and what I have so far (including a few minor fixes) is:
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~lawrencc/lsb_1.1.0-2.tar.gz
>
> Regarding the init stuff:
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to add install_initd and remove_initd to the
> sysvinit package (as they are sysv init specific)?
>
> This would ease addition of an alternative package that provides init in
> the future.
Actually, they use the defined interface to init, so they should work
with any init that supports update-rc.d (per policy). The readme may
be overspecific on this point by referring to sysvinit.
> Also looking forward, it would be nice init-functions was a symlink or
> something else changeable (alternative maybe) so the behavior is
> pluggable.
Well, ideally init-functions should call some nice pluggable stuff for
the output logging, if we come up with an init logging policy for
woody+1 (it's been talked about, but nobody to my knowledge has said
"I have an implementation" that we can play with).
My gut feeling is that init-functions *itself* should stay in the lsb
package, because it has to conform with LSB practice. I really don't
think it's a good idea for $random_debian_package to use the LSB
interface, as it's pretty lame compared to start-stop-daemon.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@phy.olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi
125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765
Reply to: