>Unfortunally, some distributions don't seem to be willing to do more >than the minimal changes to adhere to the LSB. I did some patches for >RedHat - and the bugreport is still open (I don't know whether the >patches still work).
Failing some required tests seems to be quite a motivator to at least taking a look. Barring that... *Officially*, when you certify a distribution to the LSB you're making a promise about conforming to the spec, and the test suites serve as an *indicator* of compliance (not proof: if you violate the spec and nothing in the test suites catch it, you still have to fix it), but in practice, people implement to pass the tests. >SUSE seems to try hardest to be LSB complient and Debian was rather >quick to implement my requests. I had no access to other distributions. >>Unfortunately, while we got spec contribution in this >>area, we didn't get matching code contributions: tests >>OR sample implementation. >> >(I think I'm ment with regards to the first two points.) Regarding the >latter, SUSE's implementation should completely fullfil the LSB >requirements (tough the init-functions may be a bit SUSE centric) >whereas Debian's system is also quite ok. (Though start-stop-damon >doesn't find out that my PERL script damon is running...) I didn't really mean to single you out, Tobias. There were a number of other contributors to the initscript spec section over time. >I agree with Mats that the best way to enforce init script support are >test cases. Seems that way.
