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: http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.2.0/gLSB/runlevels.html 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. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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.''
Description: PGP signature