Re: init.d scripts and LSB
>>"Grant" == Grant Bowman <grantbow@grantbow.com> writes:
Grant> * Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [020507 15:14]:
>> You really think we must abandon .deb package format and
>> switch over to rpm's for LSB conformance? You think the LSB has a
>> snowballs chance in hell of succeeding if they mandate that (which I
>> believe they do not)?
Grant> That's silly, I never said that.
Though this topic is dead, I can't fail to rise to the bait
of silly. Allow me to connect the dots: your contention was that
some Debian packages (those with init.d scripts) needed to conform to
some LSB restrictions (related to init.d scripts), so it would follow
that they may be subject to the rest of the LSB (the .rpm
requirements). I think it is a logical extension of your initial
premise.
manoj
--
Earth -- mother of the most beautiful women in the universe. Apollo,
"Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: