[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian LSB Status

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:57:38PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > It had been my
> > understanding that our init system and/or runlevels were an issue as
> > well; is that a part of the spec we don't have to comply with for the
> > specific certification we are seeking?  
> [The] 1.2 spec [clarified] that the expected behavior of init scripts and
> runlevels called for in the specification only applied to
> LSB-conformant applications, and not to LSB-conformant implementations
> (i.e. distributions). 

There were actually a couple of other init-script related problems too.

One was that the LSB allowed LSB packages to specify which runlevels
they'd be run in, and gave meanings to those runlevels -- which, naturally
enough, matched Red Hat's defaults and didn't match ours. This has been
fixed to allow the install_initd binary to map them as appropriate. Our
install_initd doesn't actually take advantage of this possibility at the
moment, though. See:

Another was that the LSB claims control over the /etc/init.d/ namespace,
and thus limits the scripts distributions can put in there without
risking a conflict with some future LSB package. All the init.d scripts in
woody/i386 are reserved for LSB compliant distributions, however, so this
shouldn't be a problem. See http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/init/init.txt
Note that we should probably either make a practice of registering our
script names with LANANA as we create them in future, or start using
/etc/init.d/debian.org-foo. :-/

I'm not sure which of these would've been what was discussed at debconf,
but they've all been adequately fixed, as far as I'm aware.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpKz324s79L6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: