Re: Some updates to the sysvinit/initactions spec
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 12, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:18:41 -0500
> From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
>
> Good point. The original place which I had suggested was
> /etc/init.d/lsb-init-functions, but some folks objected to this on a
> number of grounds (a) they didn't like it in /etc, and (b)
> lsb-init-functions isn't an actual init.d script, but rather a fragment
> of one.
>
> Does anyone care to suggest another location?
>
> No one has commented, so I'll offer a few suggestions:
>
> /lib/lsb/init-functions
> /etc/init.d/lsb-init-functions
> /etc/lsb-init-functions
>
> If no one comments, I'll choose /lib/lsb/init-functions. That seems to
> make the most amount of sense.
Yes, please use /lib/lsb/init-functions
>
> 2. killproc basename [signal] and pidofproc basename:
>
> Can we replace basename with "path" ? If we have the full path
> to a program it is much easier and safer to identify the right
> process.
>
> This seems reasonable to me, although it's a change from what the
> SysVinit package does. Comments?
>
> I've heard no comments on this either. If someone thinks this is a bad
> idea, speak now or forever hold your peace....
>
> - Ted
--
Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de
SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.
Reply to: