Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification

To: lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject: Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:28:41 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20010314152841.D17130@cistron.nl>
Mail-followup-to: lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.BSF.4.21.0103140921080.67623-100000@trantor.sc.metrolink.com>; from anderson@metrolink.com on Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:21:42AM -0500
References: <[🔎] 20010314145749.A17130@cistron.nl> <[🔎] Pine.BSF.4.21.0103140921080.67623-100000@trantor.sc.metrolink.com>

Previously Stuart Anderson wrote:
> Egads no. I meant that an application would typically not have to call
> shutdown as part of it's installation process.

Okay, that makes more sense :)

I don't hink an application should ever use shutdown, dmesg, or login
in its installation process. stty might be useful though.

Wichert.

-- 
   ________________________________________________________________
 / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience  \
| wichert@cistron.nl                  http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Reply to:

References:
- Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
  - From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl>
- Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
  - From: Stuart Anderson <anderson@metrolink.com>

Prev by Date: Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
Next by Date: RE: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
Previous by thread: Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
Next by thread: Re: command conflicts between FHS 2.2 beta and LSB specification
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread