[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LSB Spec 1.2 criticism

On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 09:44:19AM +0200, Hendrik Visage wrote:
> Or rather the NASDAQ/NYSE/*SE code for their stock (ie. like the
> "standard" used on Solaris' packages) ie. CSCO for Cisco based
> stuff, SUNW for Sun, etc.
> Their would a "problem" for systems/packages that doesn't have their
> own domain name nor Stock Code on an SE. 

... and that's why we considered and rejected using stock symbols
> codes.

> It already become an issue in one or two upcoming distributions that would be
> targeting themselves as LSB compliant, as the real intentions and views on
> this chapter is quite vague, and open for lots of debate and interpretations.
> I for one would like to have it crystal clear as to what must be using which
> httpd/syslogd etc. name too.
> Eg. is Apache or Tux or Roxen suppose to be httpd?
> Should both klogd & syslogd be started from syslogd ?
> What about metalog & syslog-ng ?

The problem is different distributions have chosen radically different
answers to these questions.  As a result, there was no way to answer
this question without forcing all of the distributions to make one
change or another to their systems, and that was clearly not going to

So while it might have been nice to unify what system administrations
might see in /etc/init.d scripts, that isn't the primary goal of the
LSB.  Hence, the only goal is to register the names of /etc/init.d
scripts so that they don't conflict with LSB applications --- not to
specify whether klogd should be started from /etc/init.d/syslogd, or
/etc/init.d/sysklogd, or whatever.

						- Ted

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

Reply to: