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

Re: Naming of init.d scripts and the LSB

On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:

> [Steve Langasek]
> > Debian packages shouldn't have to compete with the LSB for its own
> > namespace.

> Well, assuming that it is a good thing to have cross-distribution
> consistency, because this make users more comfortable with moving to
> Linux from their current platform, I believe it would be a good thing
> to also have consistent naming of init.d script across linux
> distributions too.

That's a fine goal, but I believe it's out of scope for the LSB, and I don't
want to see the ability of distros to conform to the LSB compromised by some
poorly designed attempt to enforce common init script names.

The issue isn't even that the LSB mandates that distros use common init
script names for particular services (it doesn't); the issue is that the LSB
says that LSB packages are allowed to use any init script names that haven't
previously been registered with LANANA.  There is no sane reason why a
Debian packager should have to contact LANANA first for clearance before
adding a new init script to his or her package; this is useless bureaucracy,
offering no real advantages over requiring *only* LSB packagers to register
with LANANA (which they'll have to do anyway).

> We do not consider it to compete with POSIX to follow the
> specifications and APIs provided by that standard, and most of us
> realize that it is an advantage for all distributions that the
> functions behave the same across distributions.  We do not consider
> the libc API to be Debians namespace.

We also don't have to worry about the POSIX standard telling us we're not
allowed to create other libraries with new function names without
registering them with LANANA first.

> The same way, system administration tools, documentation and other
> administration-related systems will be easier to handle for users and
> system administrators if all Linux distribution have consistent naming
> for init.d scripts.  I fail to see the advantage of reserving this as
> a Debian namespace and consider the LSB as something we do not want to
> use to create consistency across distributions in this area.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about cross-distro administration frameworks.
That has nothing to do with why I think Debian should be involved in the
LSB, and even if I thought it was a worthwhile goal, the LSB would still be
a lousy way to achieve it.

The goal of the LSB is to provide a standard that ISVs can write to -- *not*
to make life easier for admins moving from distro to distro.

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/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: