Hi, On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 01:47:39 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I think being LSB compliant is good for Debian. > > The LSB init script specification *is a specification for the init scripts > of LSB packages*. It has NOTHING to do with LSB compliance of LSB > implementations. Debian is an LSB *implementation*, NOT a collection of LSB > applications. Conforming with the LSB init script specification would NOT > make Debian packages conformant LSB applications! > > The LSB init script spec is a reasonable and internally consistent set of > guidelines for init scripts. It's not a bad policy; in fact, 90% of it is > word-for-word identical with the Debian init script policy. But the LSB > init script spec is *not* the Debian init script policy, and we should not > blindly seek conformance to an LSB *application* spec for its own sake.
Agreed. > I happen to be in favor of seeing Debian adopt at least one feature of the > LSB init script spec that we miss, which is the mandatory 'status' argument. > But this needs to be adopted as part of Debian policy itself, through our > normal procedures for such changes. Yeah, this is something I've on my TODO list, most of the needed code is already on s-s-d. Will try to get something working this weekend. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
