On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 23:10:50 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > So since no one had anything to add, here is a concrete proposal. All > of this reflects current practice, I believe. Since the addition of > status_of_proc to /lib/lsb/init-functions, this has been quite > standardized in practice, and as I wrote earlier, more than half of the > affected packages are already doing this. > > * Add "status" as an optional init script option (similar to > "reload"). No one objected to that. > * Require exit status 0 or not 0. There were concerns about > anything more specific, and it's not necessary in practice, as > consumers of this generally only check for 0 or not 0. Could be > refined in the future. > * Add footnote encouraging use of LSB exit statuses anyway. > * Add footnote about what "service is running" might mean. Some > people in the discussion were concerned about this being > ambiguous, some were concerned about making it too specific. > The main nonhuman consumers of this interface are system > monitoring programs that will decide to run "start" if "status" > reports not running. So it is reasonable to define the behavior > of "status" in terms of "start". > * Add something simple about console messages from status option. > That whole section seems to have been overtaken by reality, but > what I wrote is pretty close to it.
Just a quite note, start-stop-daemon got a --status command with LSB semantics in dpkg 1.16.1. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120513002304.ga7...@gaara.hadrons.org
