On Aug 31, 2003 at 20:40, Wouter Verhelst praised the llamas by saying: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:09:41PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The LSB init script policy also says that all distro init script names > > must be registered with LANANA, which is a total crock. > > That certainly would be the case for Debian initscripts, but I fail to > see why it would be a problem for LSB initscripts. Whereas in Debian, > namespace conflicts are a bug by definition (policy 10.1), this is not > the case for LSB packages. Since namespace conflicts are always a > problem, it's nice that they're using LANANA to resolve that (by > ensuring it never happens). > Would people be willing to add the status target with or without the LSB exit codes? -- David Pashley david@davidpashley.com Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Attachment:
pgpulYl71MuJr.pgp
Description: PGP signature