Bug#208010: [PROPOSAL] init script LSB 1.3 compliance
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 14:08:03 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > This proposal aims to synchronize the Debian Policy, section 9.3, with
> > the LSB 1.3.0, chapter 24 [1]. Attached is a patch and the resulting
> > plain text for better reading.
>
> Objection. Why should our init scripts comply with the LSB?
Because it's a good thing to comply with the LSB when possible? Because
it's considered a bug [1] not to do so?
> Note that the LSB exit codes are directly in conflict with our own -
> they require the init script _fail_ if the program is removed but not
> purged, while we require it silently do nothing and return
> success. This proposal would therefore introduce bugs in most existing
> init scripts.
Obviously, because packages cannot change in the first place, they would
conflict with the current policy.
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 15:53:58 +0200, wouter@debian.org wrote:
> Objection. There's no need for our packages to show the same
> behavior as LSB packages for Debian to be LSB-compatible.
Please explain.
> Specifically, there's no need to force our initscripts to exit with
> non-zero exit code, since that would break a quite a few things.
The only thing I'm aware of is when removed packages are purged.
invoke-rc.d can easily be patched to ignore exit code 5 from init
scripts. Try something like this with the current 0/1 exit codes...
Kind regards,
Martin
[1] http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt (5.p)
Reply to: