On Wednesday 04 May 2005 23:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Thomas Hood dijo [Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:19AM +0200]:
> > I have been looking at the lsb init functions and am beginning to feel
> > that they are a bad idea.
>
> It will be a hard time converting to them, but in the end I think it
> will be a net gain.
>
> > * Converting to lsb init function requires modifying every initscript in
> > Debian.
> >
> > * Every initscript has to read in a file containing a set of function
> > definitions, some/most of which the initscript does not use.
>
> Yes. Inertia is hard to break - But it is often necessary.
Optimize the easy case: For daemons which interact nicely with s-s-d, a init
script should look like this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/bash
NAME=exampled
DAEMON=/usr/sbin/exampled
MESSAGE="Starting the ExampleD"
FLAGS=-default
. /lib/handle_init
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where /lib/handle_init can handle /etc/default/$NAME files, pidfile handling
(/var/run/$NAME.pid), s-s-d calls and much more.
Do you need more flexibility? Think about
{pre,post}-{{re,}start,stop,reload,status} functions.
lsb output? rewrite handle_init.
lin{da,tian} checkability? quite easy.
bootlogging? handle_init just has to properly redirect all output.
debconf-interfaces interactive startup? rewrite handle_init.
Debug output if -n $PS1?
non-sh init scripts? convert handle_init into a binary to be called, which can
handle /etc/$NAME/init.d/{pre,post}-{{re,}start,stop,{force-,}reload,status}
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
