Re: Naming of init.d scripts and the LSB
Petter Reinholdtsen writes...
> [Steve Langasek]
> > Debian packages shouldn't have to compete with the LSB for its own
> > namespace.
As pointed out in another mail, they don't. Trying to quash this wrong idea
before it spreads...
> 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 think the FHS init.d section is enough for most of this.
> I believe it would be a good thing
> to also have consistent naming of init.d script across linux
> distributions too.
Well fortunately most distro's use upstream names so we're pretty close
anyway. It would be nice if they were the same across distros, but that's not
something the LSB can mandate. The LSB is a trailing edge standard, it (tries)
to only add things that are already de facto standard. So the way to solve
this would be to start up a separate project that advocated this and helped
build consensus across the distros and get things synced up. Then once you
accomplished that *then* the LSB could add it. While you're at it I'd like to
see a common namespace for packages (at least source packages, binary might be