Re: init.d scripts and LSB
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 05:19:07PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Debian is more than GNU/Linux. I see no reason why Debian GNU/Hurd and
> > Debian *BSD should follow the LSB.
>
> This is a discussion we should be having after the release on a forum
> like debian-project.
Sure, why not. If there is anything to discuss, that is.
> FWIW, I think we should try to use the LSB as much as possible on
> all Debian ports. Please note the name: `port'. It is a port of the
> Debian system to the Linux, Hurd or BSD kernel.
The Hurd is not a kernel.
> We want to have the
> same Debian everywhere instead of suddenly finding ourselves confroned
> with a fork within Debian.
It is Debian GNU/Hurd, so there is no way it can not be Debian. As for "the
same", there is no way we will follow the LSB up to the ABI specification
for example wrt versioned symbols. Nor does it make much sense to do so,
except for binary compatibility with GNU/Linux binaries. Which to make it
useful in the context of Debian requires a whole lot of more meat into the
packaging system.
The LSB is necessary to avoid diversity among GNU/Linux distributions.
There is only one GNU system, as such no diversity, and all of what the LSB
specifies as far as I have seen it (I have not made a thorough analysis) is
simply defined by the one implementation of the GNU system.
As far as it concerns me, I am not very interested in offering a blanket
statement to follow whatever Linux idiosyncrasy a Linux (exclusively!, they
don't even pretend to specify anything else, which is quite a long way from
the FHS, for example) standard body comes up with. Not to speak of the
interesting fact that the LSB specifies everything and their mom except
Linux itself (eg the kernel interfaces).
Anyway, your expressed concern is unwarranted. In fact, we did in the past
some non-trivial work to make it possible to offer the Debian way of doing
things on the Hurd as well, and we will certainly continue to do so. There
is nothing special in how Debian runs system services, etc, and they can all
be supported by the Hurd, and can be made the default in Debian GNU/Hurd if
people care enough about it. For example, Roland McGrath split up the init
system to make it possible to use a sysv-style init as used by Debian
GNU/Linux by default.
I don't think that Debian as a whole is interested enough to make policy and
design decisions that really fly on all possible systems, including
non-Linux systems like GNU/Hurd (thanks to Anthony for reminding me where the
priorities are). So you can not expect that everything that is decided now
or in the past can be carried over literally to the non-Linux ports. Nor do
we have the resources to really follow every decision and cross check it for
usability on our port (and if we do in individual cases, we might get flamed
for holding up the process against current priorities). I take it that you
mean that the Debian spirit (technical excellence, no-worries-approach to
installation and upgrading etc) carries over, rather than minute details in
current policies, and this, so far as I can see it, is unharmed by the fact
that the Debian GNU/Hurd group consists of a merry mix of early Debian
members, new members of Debian, and fresh blood.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: