On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > > Changes: > > lsb (2.0-6) unstable; urgency=low > > . > > * Create lsb package in binary-indep step. (Closes: #297788) > > * Merge /lib/lsb/init-functions from Ubuntu. > > * Split /lib/lsb/init-functions into arch-all lsb-base package; this > > functionality is thus available for use by other, non-LSB packages. > > * Update README.Debian. > > > Should Debian initscripts use lsb init-functions?
Yes, IMHO it should, and it has been requested before (#208010). There are several issues with the way init scripts are written by developers currently: - no uniformity, messages are show in a "messy" way and it's not easy to tell when the system has started up correctly and when it has failed - not all init scripts share the same arguments, some useful arguments are not common (like 'status', #291148) - there is no logging of init scripts (#169600) startup, so it's difficult to determine (post-boot) if all the system's elements started up correctly. - adding common library functions for LSB scripts could allow us to provide an 'interactive login' such as the used by other distributions and which is, actually, quite useful for new installations (to determine which init.d script is freezing the system due to hardware trouble). There are more advantages than those above, but those above are the ones that I would like to see fixed first :-) Regards Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
