On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:57 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Manoj's suggestion. The best way to go about it would be to > draft a complete proposal (including standardizing the output format), start > patching packages in unstable, and go from there.
Please see the latest patch against lsb-base and comments at: * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=483285 That patch defines a status_of_proc() function. The output format conforms with the exit codes and log_[success|failure]_msg() functions as defined in the LSB Reference Specification: * http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html > FWIW, I think it would be appropriate to add an option to start-stop-daemon > to support this use case. It already has most of the necessary code, and it > would fit well with its existing interface. Obviously, getting the library status_of_proc() function (or similar) into /lib/lsb/init-functions would be the logical first step. Once that occurs, then patching start-stop-daemon should be simple. Additionally, various daemons' init scripts would also need a status) section that would either call status_of_proc or perhaps start-stop-daemon --status. Cheers, -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Server Developer Canonical, LTD [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/83A61194
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
