Re: LSB Status
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:04:30PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Things break. That's what happen when things fail. You'll notice we don't
> > guarantee anything better for our own init scripts.
> LSB does so we will need to start caring. You can't selectively
> implement the LSB, that would make the whole thing worthless.
Eh? The LSB does no such thing:
"An init.d shell script may declare using the "Required-Start:" header
that it must not be run until certain boot facilities are provided. This
infomration is used by the installation tool or the boot-time boot-script
execution facility to ensure that init scripts are run in the correct
order."
The LSB is specifically designed *not* to require major changes to the
way distributions or systems are set up to function.
As a matter of implementation quality we may wish to do something to that
effect, but it's not a requirement, and not doing it certainly doesn't
make the whole thing worthless. And there's little point worrying about
implementation quality when we don't have an implementation in the
first place.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
"Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt
Reply to: