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

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> > Changes: 
> >  lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low
> >  .
> >    * Create lsb package in binary-indep step.  (Closes: #297788)
> >    * Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu.
> >    * Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-base package; this
> >      functionality is thus available for use by other, non-LSB packages.
> >    * Update README.Debian.
> Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?

Yes, IMHO it should, and it has been requested before (#208010). There are
several issues with the way init scripts are written by developers

- no uniformity, messages are show in a "messy" way and it's not easy to 
tell when the system has started up correctly and when it has failed

- not all init scripts share the same arguments, some useful arguments are 
not common (like 'status', #291148) 

- there is no logging of init scripts (#169600) startup, so it's difficult 
to determine (post-boot) if all the system's elements started up correctly.

- adding common library functions for LSB scripts could allow us to 
provide an 'interactive login' such as the used by other distributions 
and which is, actually, quite useful for new installations (to 
determine which init.d script is freezing the system due to hardware 

There are more advantages than those above, but those above are the ones 
that I would like to see fixed first :-)



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: