Re: Bug#134658: ITP: lsb -- Linux Standard Base 1.1 core support package
On Feb 20, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>
> > I guess this will come off as smart, but if it is "controlled", I
> > would have expected someone to write down why this section was
> > written in the first place.
>
> Good point. In fact, how to maintain a rational as part of the document
> was discussed. At the time, it didn't seem critical to include the rational
> in the standards document. (You can have a good debate about wether rational
> is appropriate for the normative parts of a standards). Anyway, because we
> all learn from what we do, it now seems that having the rational would be
> helpful.
If nothing else, a rationale would help flesh things out for people
doing a clean-room implementation. I for one was mystified about the
init runlevel section, and also had trouble figuring out what was
supposed to apply just to LSB *applications* and what applies to LSB
implementations. (For example, do all init scripts on a system have
to comply with LSB's specification, i.e. regarding return codes and
arguments, or just the ones provided by LSB conforming applications?)
Rationale would clear some of this stuff up. (i.e. "We required the
status argument because some distributions have tools that depend on
it." versus "We required the status argument because some applications
need to learn the state of services started by init.")
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@phy.olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi
125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765
Reply to: