Re: Question about Facility names

[Chmouel Boudjnah <chmouel@mandrakesoft.com>]

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:

> There's actually another way these dependencies can be used, and
> happily, either Richard Gooch had the same idea I had, or he read the
> LSB spec and decided to implement it (don't know which).  Anyway, a
> Debian developer recently pointed me at this:

i do not like too much that, what does this bring more (except: back
compat issue) ? Dependencies ? as acox say it could be in the files
himself. I guess it could be doable in the current sysv scheme. The
main rant of Richard for the current Sysv scheme is :

--=-=-=
The problem with all this, if it isn't obvious already, is that it's
complex. The directories of symlinks make it difficult to see what is
being run and how all the pieces fit together. If that doesn't
convince you, consider the number of words required to describe this
scheme. Note how the BSD-style scheme is much easier to describe (and
by extension, understand).
--=-=-=

i do no understand what the problem if we use tools like
chkconfig(8)...

-- 
MandrakeSoft Inc                     http://www.chmouel.org
                      --Chmouel