[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 06:03:56PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> 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.

Policy recommend not to use them by explicitly listing thus that should
be used. That ought to be sufficient. Telling that some of them are
reserved by the LSB for LSB packages init files is not particularly
relevant to Debian policy. Or else explain what mean `reserved for
distribution' in ourt context.

> > 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. 

OK, then go with
  All status messages mandated by policy should go to standard output.

We can hope people have sufficient sense to use stderr for error

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: