On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:29:02PM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:56:24 -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > Objection. Why should our init scripts comply with the LSB? > > > > > Because it's a good thing to comply with the LSB when possible? Because > > > it's considered a bug [1] not to do so? > > > > I think you've misunderstood the intent of that requirement. The > > requirement is that sarge be an LSB-compliant *host system*; the portion > > of the LSB you're citing refers to how LSB packages *themselves* must > > behave, it is not behavior that LSB packages must be able to depend on > > from the underlying system.
> Another argument: The main advantage I see there is the finer > granularity of failure exit codes. The current practice is to exit with > 0 or 1, you don't know, whether the service has been started if the > script exits successfully (package may be removed), and you don't know > what the failure is if it exits with 1, grep'ing the script output is > ugly and useless. Being able to distinguish failures using the script's > exit code is a clean way and would probably ease other tasks. > I'm willing to revert "exit 5" to our current practice if this is the > only hard argument against this proposal and if there is some interest > in such an updated proposal. Without the 'exit 5' portion, I think it represents a good target to work towards; but it's a little too early to try to mandate these fine-grained exit codes in policy. I don't see anything in policy that says you can't use most LSB exit codes from init scripts today -- if there is, we should probably remove it -- so it's better to first try implementing this in a few packages before making it part of policy. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgp280oFVmOQW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
