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

Re: Naming of init.d scripts and the LSB

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
>>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
> Hm, that is sad.  Because some of us with a large number of machines,
> do need to handle cross-distribution consistency.  Not to move from
> distro to distro, but because a few hundred machines rune each of the
> distros. :)
> I hope someone try to make life easier for admins needing to
> administrate a lot of machines with different distros.

I think both latitudes can be largely satisfied if LANANA can be persuaded
(if they do not already do so) to solicit approval from distributors before
issuing new approvals.

That way, we don't have to try to register every init.d script under the
sun, and ISVs still don't get to register names that are likely to cause
pain in the future.

Alternatively, perhaps LANANA should have a list of names that have been
vetoed that we can add to in a light-weight manner, and have a script that
ensures that packages only get into the archive if their init.d scripts are
thus registered, or otherwise attempts an automated registration.

Cheers, Phil.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: