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

Re: Should Debian use lsb init-functions?

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]:
> > I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
> > that they are a bad idea.
> It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it
> will be a net gain.
> > * Converting to lsb init function requires modifying every initscript in
> > Debian.
> >
> > * Every initscript has to read in a file containing a set of function
> > definitions, some/most of which the initscript does not use.
> Yes. Inertia is hard to break - But it is often necessary.

Optimize the easy case: For daemons which interact nicely with s-s-d, a init 
script should look like this:


MESSAGE="Starting the ExampleD"

. /lib/handle_init

Where /lib/handle_init can handle /etc/default/$NAME files, pidfile handling 
(/var/run/$NAME.pid), s-s-d calls and much more.

Do you need more flexibility? Think about 
{pre,post}-{{re,}start,stop,reload,status} functions.

lsb output? rewrite handle_init.
lin{da,tian} checkability? quite easy.
bootlogging? handle_init just has to properly redirect all output.
debconf-interfaces interactive startup? rewrite handle_init.
Debug output if -n $PS1?
non-sh init scripts? convert handle_init into a binary to be called, which can 
handle /etc/$NAME/init.d/{pre,post}-{{re,}start,stop,{force-,}reload,status}

Regards, David
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
 -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15

Reply to: