Re: LSB Spec 1.2 criticism
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 01:29:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Still in chapter 22, Facility Names, it's not clear what value $local_fs
[snip]
> In the next section, Script names, I'd like to again suggest that LSB scripts
> be named either:
>
> * lsb-<foo> for LANANA allocated names
> or * foo.com-<bar> for names based on the DNS
>
I'm still not seeing the need for this "registration" etc.
I'd rather advise that LSB packages (which would mostly be binary packages)
to rather prepend a opt-<script>, and let tho OS/Distribution decide on the
names for those installed by the Distribution/OS.
> and the remaining namespace be reserved for distributions. This certainly
> won't cause any more conflicts with existing practice than the existing
> language does, and doesn't seem too much of a burden to place on
> LSB application vendors. Further, it allows LSB packages to coexist
> with distribution provided packages (/etc/init.d/apache from Red Hat,
> /etc/init.d/lsb-apache from the apache group) on the same system should
> the sysadmin so desire.
>
> The real reason I think that's a better way of doing things is that
> otherwise Debian needs to register some 350 init.d script names [1],
> and needs to worry about an additional 114 that conflict with the LSB's
> guidelines. Personally, I think we should avoid this conflict while
> we can. (For reference, there are about 40 pre-allocated names listed in
> the spec at the moment)
>
> In particular, if this suggestion is going to be rejected for LSB 1.2,
> could this please be considered a request for LANANA to allocate the
> names listed at the URL in the footnote?
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: