Re: LSB Status

["Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shalehperry@home.com>]

On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
>> > If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move
>> > all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen.
>> > Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install
>> >  .lsb files *as well*
>> 
>> we can support the installation of lsb binaries HOWEVER the lsb spec adds a
>> 'status' option to init scripts which lsb packages may expect to exist.  So
>> at
>> the bare minimum we need to support that.
> 
> Well no, packages in .lsb that have an /etc/init.d/initscript must
> support the 'status' option but Debian packages don't have to do
> that as they are Debian packages and not .LSB packages.
> 

right, but if you want to INSTALL and USE a lsb package that package is fully
within its rights to expect /etc/init.d/apache status to work (not to pick on
apache).

>> If we actually want to call Debian an LSB system that involves the work I
>> mentioned above.
> 
> There's probably lots to do for LSB compliance but adding a status
> option to every /etc/init.d/* script is probably not part of it.
> 
> Disclaimer:
> If I'm wrong then the LSB spec is even more stupid than I thought...
> 

actually the spec calls for RH style shell functions in the inits instead of
our method of start-stop-daemon.  Yes as with all specs it is the worst of all
possible worlds but the things all of them were willing to do.