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

Re: Getting LSB 3.0 support into Debian (Was: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA)

On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 10:56:36AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > Getting LSB 3.0 support in Debian sounds like a great idea.  Lets make

> Forget it. 

> Full LSB 3.0 support implies mucking with the initscript names.  That won't
> happen.  We can certainly do something so that no clashes happen, such as
> shunting all initscripts from LSB somewhere else than /etc/init.d, or adding
> "lsb-" to the front of all of them (my favourite solution).

Can't shunt them; the LSB specifies that if an LSB package provides an init
script, it must be installed in /etc/init.d[0].

Can mangle the names; the LSB only specifies the namespace rules that the
LSB applications must follow[1], and we make no claims that our own packages
are LSB-compliant packages (the fact that they aren't rpm's is the first
hint), only that we are trying to provide an LSB-compliant environment.

So since the latter seems to be perfectly LSB-compliant, I don't see any
reason not to do this.  Someone ought to get the LSB future-proofed on our
behalf, though. :P

> And this crap happens for the cron scripts too.

Yeah, but neither cron scripts nor init scripts should be invoked *by* LSB
packages, so dynamically renaming them ought to work just fine and be
compliant with the letter of the LSB.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

[0] http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/initsrcinstrm.html
[1] http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/etc.html#FHS-NAME-RULES

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: