Bug#208010: [PROPOSAL] init script LSB 1.3 compliance
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:56:24 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> I think you've misunderstood the intent of that requirement. The
> requirement is that sarge be an LSB-compliant *host system*; the portion
> of the LSB you're citing refers to how LSB packages *themselves* must
> behave, it is not behavior that LSB packages must be able to depend on
> from the underlying system.
o.k.
Another argument: The main advantage I see there is the finer
granularity of failure exit codes. The current practice is to exit with
0 or 1, you don't know, whether the service has been started if the
script exits successfully (package may be removed), and you don't know
what the failure is if it exits with 1, grep'ing the script output is
ugly and useless. Being able to distinguish failures using the script's
exit code is a clean way and would probably ease other tasks.
I'm willing to revert "exit 5" to our current practice if this is the
only hard argument against this proposal and if there is some interest
in such an updated proposal.
Kind regards,
Martin
Reply to: