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

Bug#208010: [PROPOSAL] init script LSB 1.3 compliance

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:06:02 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:

> > > > [reserved exit codes]
> > > 
> > > Does the above make sense in the context of Debian Policy ? 
> > 
> > You think this can be better?
> I think it can be removed completly. 

I disagree. "reserved" means "not recommended for usage" here, which
should be communicated somehow.

> > > This paragraph should clarify what is a 'error message' as opposed to
> > > a 'status message'
> > 
> > Possibly, what do you suggest?
> This policy does not mandate any 'error message' than I am aware of, so:
>    All messages mandated by policy should go to standard output. You should
>    ensure that any other messages that can eventually be generated is send
>    to standard error.

I question this definition. Examples: The bind example has a "usage"
message, which is printed to stderr. The extended status output is not
mandated by policy, it should go to stdout. Defining what an "error
message" is may cause more questions than it would answer. I may be
wrong and would like to hear other opinions.

Kind regards,


Reply to: