Hi Michael, On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:30:06AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> So, in #591791 Steve proposed that packages should continue to ship sysv > init script, regardless if they have a native upstart job or not, and I > basically agree with that. > What I don't like about the proposal in #591791 is, that each sysv init > script should check itself, if it is run under upstart and exit. > This means we duplicate a lot of code and add upstart specific interna to > every init script shipping a native upstart job. Right, in the policy proposal I am describing that each init script is responsible for checking this. But the actual *implementation* of this check can and should use a common shell library to do the heavy lifting. Sorry, I didn't think that specifying that belonged in policy. Do you think the use of a common shell library should be enforced in policy as part of this? > I'd much prefer if we could use the /lib/lsb/init-functions lib to do the > same kind of redirecting for upstart. That is, all a package needs to do > if it ships a native upstart job (or systemd service), is to include . > /lib/lsb/init-functions in its sysv init script. lib/lsb/init-functions > /would then do the correct thing, when it is run under > systemd or upstart. > Steve, do you think this would be an approach that works for upstart (and > Ubuntu)? I hadn't thought about having /lib/lsb/init-functions automatically do this checking when sourced. I think on some level the idea offends me, the same way having C libraries call setuid() or exit() offends me. :) Also, this check is only needed for those packages that *ship* an upstart job, and surely those packages know who they are and can handle the conversion easily enough if we give them a function to call? -- 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
