Hi Didier, On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 06:39:07PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > I'm proposing this change in support of bug #591791, a bug against > > debian-policy which aims to come up with coherent rules about the inclusion > > of native upstart jobs in Debian. This is not a very high-level > > abstraction, it still requires the init script to work out the correct > > return value for each invocation. That's about as high-level as most of > > the other lsb functions get anyway, but if you'd like something different > > I'm certainly open to discussing.
> tl;dr: Is the "LSB support package" really the good place to support > multiple init systems in Debian ? > I'm mostly fine with the current patch; I just wonder if > /lib/lsb/init-functions is really the good file/package to have all > those Debian-specific initscript functions. As was highlighted by the > #596529 bug, /lib/lsb/init-functions already ships way more functions > that what the LSB mandates. > I wonder if moving the Debian-specific (non-LSB) functions to an > hypothetic /lib/debian/init-functions or alike wouldn't make things > cleaner, e.g. maintained in a Debian-specific package, such as > `base-files` or `debian-initsupport` or `whatever`. We could even > consider that debian-initsupport package as the starting support for all > the "let's support more than one init system" problem. > On the other hand, as I expressed in my #596529 wontfix, many packages > in Debian currently depend on functions implemented in > /lib/lsb/init-functions and breaking that would certainly break wide > parts of the archive and just continue to add more functions to > /lib/lsb/init-functions is the easy way forward. > What do you think ? My opinion is that this is best done in the single /lib/lsb/init-functions file. The filename is an interface defined in the LSB, but there's nothing in the LSB that says this interface can't provide additional shell functions; and having this all in a single place simplifies the interface for the Debian init scripts. And if you've followed the discussion on debian-devel, you know that there's quite a lot of interest in having simpler init scripts. :) If you decide not to include this patch in lsb/init-functions, then I guess I'll propose a new shell include as you describe; but I really don't think that's the best solution. Thanks for considering, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
