While I am in favor of improving the init scripts, I think the current problem is that too many fail to implement policy properly. Augmenting policy will not make things anyway better in that regard, though it can be an insentive to fix them.
So if you ever change an init script to implement your proposal, please check it really implement correctly what is mandated by current policy. Comment below: On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:57:46AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote: > --- debian-policy-3.6.1.0.orig/policy.sgml 2003-08-19 14:32:23.000000000 > +0200 > +++ debian-policy-3.6.1.0/policy.sgml 2003-09-02 06:53:48.000000000 +0200 > @@ -5362,13 +5362,16 @@ > <tag><tt>force-reload</tt></tag> > <item>cause the configuration to be reloaded if the > service supports this, otherwise restart the > - service.</item> > + service,</item> > + > + <tag><tt>status</tt></tag> > + <item>print the current status of the service.</item> This one can be very tricky to implement correctly, and may require more code than what we would like in a config file. A reference to the section below describing the output and return value is needed. > + <tag>8-99</tag> > + <item>reserved for future LSB use,</item> > + <tag>100-149</tag> > + <item>reserved for distribution use,</item> > + <tag>150-199</tag> > + <item>reserved for application use,</item> > + <tag>200-254</tag> > + <item>reserved.</item> Does the above make sense in the context of Debian Policy ? > + </taglist> > + All error messages should be printed on standard error. All status > + messages should be printed on standard output. (This does not > + prevent scripts from calling logging functions.) > + </p> This paragraph should clarify what is a 'error message' as opposed to a 'status message' > + > + <item>program or service status is unknown,</item> > + <tag>5-99</tag> > + <item>reserved for future LSB use,</item> > + <tag>100-149</tag> > + <item>reserved for distribution use,</item> > + <tag>150-199</tag> > + <item>reserved for application use,</item> > + <tag>200-254</tag> > + <item>reserved.</item> Same remark as above. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
