Re: LSB Spec 1.2 criticism
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:27:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> 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
Ah!!!
That makes sense then.
I would then request that the LSB chapter regarding init scripts, state
something very similar to:
<addition>
The goal of this chapter is not to dictate the naming standards for
LSB compliant distributions, but rather for LSB applications to take note of.
The reasoning for reservation and/or LALANA registration, is to prevent LSB
applications (ie. distribution independent software using LSB compliant
distributions), to not install a script with the same name as an already
registered/reserved/commonly used script name. Thus it's the onus of the LSB
application providers to ensure that theircw script names do not clash with
other equivalent LSB applications nor with reserved/registered script names.
</addition>
I believe this shuold give the necessary clarity, which I'm currently missng
in this chapter on init.d script names.
Greetings
Hendrik
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: