Re: Feedback on Ted T'so's initscripts proposal

[Jim Kingdon <kingdon@redhat.com>]

> Instead, LSB scripts would only be allowed to depend on certain
> LSB-defined dependencies: network, syslog, netdaemons, etc.  This
> means that it would be very simple for the initscript installer to map
> that to a specific SysV rc.d SXX and KXX number.

So you are planning to delete "Provides:" from the text?  I don't see
anything in the current draft
(http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/lsb-spec-0002/msg00015.html was
the latest I found) which implies the above (yet :-)).

Speaking of which, you planning to check this into CVS?

But you may have me convinced about the need for the basic
"Requires-start: $network" functionality (especially if the diversity
between distributions in the S10network numbers is real - I haven't
gone and checked myself).  Let me expand slightly:

* sysadmins could still install scripts with "ln -s" - the LSB
  "Requires-start" line would only be needed if the script is
  installed via install_initd (which would be required for LSB
  applications, but not for manual operation).

* sysadmins could still re-arrange the scripts manually.  Basically,
  Ted's draft doesn't say whether one uses links, or r2d2 (which puts
  scripts in init.d but uses a config file to specify which ones gets
  run, as I understand it), or some other mechanism.

* Any thoughts on having "Requires-start" on the install_initd command
  line versus in the script?  The former kind of sounds like it could
  be a mess (especially if people are running install_initd manually
  rather than via a script), but it seemed worth at least asking the
  question.