On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:11:53 -0600, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan Coulson wrote: > > > > > I tried to make our functions file LSB compliant, but I left a few > > things in to avoid troubles with our bootscripts. [LSB mentions > > start_daemon, we have loadproc. loadproc/killproc call > > evaluate_retval at the end, and we still check for PIDFILE (But we > > have the new -p [pidfile] option for a few functions)]. > > > > It's been a while since I've done anthing with the new bootscripts, but > can we do a little magic with the loadproc function WRT already running, > and then do a very simple function for start_daemon that contians only > 'loadproc $@' ? Maybe make the already running waning conditional based > on a value that is set only if loadproc is called from start_daemon or > something to that effect. Then in a future release, take out loadproc > completely by renaming it start_daemon (once everything has been > updated to use the new functions. Perhaps I'm missing something > else here WRT evaluate_retval, but it'd seem the echo_ok could be > replaced by log_success_msg, echo_fail log_fialure_msg, etc. > > -- DJ Lucas
echo_* go back one line, then print OK/FAIL/WARN log_message_* just print a message, then OK/FAIL/WARN about start_daemon/loadproc, I still was not sure if we wanted to move to LSB compliancy right now or not. [It means other bootscripts would have to analyze the return codes of start_daemon/loadproc, as well as killproc]. -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) ------ nathan at linuxfromscratch org conathan at gmail com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
