Re: [proofreading] Re: Initscripts management proposal
While it is good and useful to standardize init.d names for packages
which are distributed by distributions, it isn't strictly necessary as
far as the goals of the LSB are concerned. So I was hoping we could
evade the issues of whether scripts should be called "httpd" or
"apache", or "sendmail" versus "smtp".
All that we really need to do is make sure that (a) LSB init.d scripts
don't conflict with distribution init.d scripts, and (b) LSB init.d
script names don't conflict with other LSB init.d scripts. Thus the
need for a registry.
The registry could also be used to standardize init.d script names for
distributions, which would be kinda cool so that fewer things change
when sysadmins have to administer multiple distribubtions at once. But
I deliberately didn't want to tackle that one. Given that folks in the
past have been pretty reluctant to change their distribution to match
another distribution, I didn't want to add something else to the list
which might slow down the LSB. Still, if people want to work on it, and
are willing to change their distributions towards a common naming
scheme, that's not an unworthy goal.
- Ted
Reply to: