Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch

To: Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
Cc: debian-project@lists.debian.org, debian-lsb@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 16:00:30 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20060807140030.GO18399@mails.so.argh.org>
Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>, debian-project@lists.debian.org, debian-lsb@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1154955248.4979.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1154376134.6415.229.camel@localhost.localdomain> <[🔎] 20060805200733.GM18399@mails.so.argh.org> <[🔎] 1154955248.4979.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>

* Jeff Licquia (licquia@debian.org) [060807 15:12]:
> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:07 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > How about the init-scripts? Does LSB say anything about them, or is that
> > a rather optional component?
> 
> Yes, I had forgotten those; there were conventions in 1.3, but they have
> changed slightly since then.

So, anything we need are forced to change in our init scripts?

Or, if I read the standard correct, is that only for "conforming
applications", i.e. for applications that are deployed on Debian?

Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
  - From: "Chris Lawrence" <lawrencc@debian.org>

References:
- Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
  - From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
- Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
  - From: Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
Next by Date: Re: Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
Previous by thread: Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
Next by thread: Re: Re: LSB 3.1 status for etch
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread