[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Linux Core Consortium

>Unfortunally, some distributions don't seem to be willing to do more 
>than the minimal changes to adhere to the LSB. I did some patches for 
>RedHat - and the bugreport is still open (I don't know whether the 
>patches still work).

Failing some required tests seems to be quite a motivator
to at least taking a look. Barring that...

*Officially*, when you certify a distribution to the LSB you're
making a promise about conforming to the spec, and the test suites
serve as an *indicator* of compliance (not proof: if you violate
the spec and nothing in the test suites catch it, you still have
to fix it), but in practice, people implement to pass the tests.

>SUSE seems to try hardest to be LSB complient and Debian was rather 
>quick to implement my requests. I had no access to other distributions.

>>Unfortunately, while we got spec contribution in this
>>area, we didn't get matching code contributions: tests
>>OR sample implementation.
>(I think I'm ment with regards to the first two points.) Regarding the 
>latter, SUSE's implementation should completely fullfil the LSB 
>requirements (tough the init-functions may be a bit SUSE centric) 
>whereas Debian's system is also quite ok. (Though start-stop-damon 
>doesn't find out that my PERL script damon is running...)

I didn't really mean to single you out, Tobias.  There were
a number of other contributors to the initscript spec section
over time.

>I agree with Mats that the best way to enforce init script support are 
>test cases.

Seems that way.

Reply to: