Re: NEED HELP: Making woody LSB compliant
Hello and moin,
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I've received several requests to update woody in order to make it
> compliant with the LSB (which version btw.?), including one from the
Well, the only approved LSB version is 1.3, LSB 1.9 (not yet approved by
the board of directors) is a interim version which paves the way for LSB
2.0 which will be modular.
Thus it makes sense to look at the 1.9-proposed changes, but they are not
(yet) set in stone.
> I also remember some talk about start-stop-daemon having to be
> altered. What about this one?
(That's my favourite topic since most of the gLSB 1.9 init.d script
changes stem from me, moreover I think I was the first user of this part in
lsb.deb.)
Areas which need improvement:
- Backport lsb.deb from unstable to stable (problem: Python version)
- Teach start-stop-daemon to return LSB complient exit codes
(this can be partially emulated in init-functions, but doing it in
start-stop-daemon is much better)
- Checking whether a program is running (for script based daemons)
(See Debian bug 167757, LSB bug 677744), the problem is discussed here:
http://freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2003-July/001716.html
I probably will deside something, write a patch for gLSB and let it
include [given that no-one wants to discuss at lsb-discuss].
If _you_ have any opinion about this, all comments are welcome.
otherwise, I think, this part is quite ok.
> There's also an upload to woody-proposed-updates of the lsb package
> which says "Support LSB 1.2 in woody. Includes all changes through
> 1.2-6 in sid."
How about supporting 1.3 instead of 1.2?
> Task: Find out which LSB spec we would like to meet, v1.9 is out for
> reviewing
Which doesn't mean that it is not changing. I think the goal is to include
SUSv3 instead of SUSv2 (http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/)
which means some changes in the commands section and maybe else where.
Tobias
Reply to: