Re: PROPOSAL: init file actions (draft 2)

[Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@transmeta.com>]

Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net> writes:

> We should define return codes as appropriate not strings. This is
> English centric.

For starters, how about:

         0: no error
         1: generic or unspecified error (already in use)
         2: invalid argument(s)
         3: unimplemented feature (for example, "reload")
         4: user had insufficient privilege
         5: program is not installed
         6: program is not configured

And reserve the rest of the lower numbers for future LSB use, as well
as numbers for application-specific and distribution-specific use.

>> All error messages should be printed on standard error.  All status
>> messages should be printed on standard output.
 
> Each distribution has a distinctive format. It would still be right IMHO
> to provide shell functions for error/warning etc that cant be used so the
> script added looks like the vendor native form.

Yes on the distinctive format.  Shell functions would be good.  But,
you're not disagreeing that errors should go to stderr and non-errors
should go to stdout, are you?

- Dan