Hello and moin, On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Martin Schulze wrote: > I've received several requests to update woody in order to make it > compliant with the LSB (which version btw.?), including one from the
Well, the only approved LSB version is 1.3, LSB 1.9 (not yet approved by the board of directors) is a interim version which paves the way for LSB 2.0 which will be modular. Thus it makes sense to look at the 1.9-proposed changes, but they are not (yet) set in stone. > I also remember some talk about start-stop-daemon having to be > altered. What about this one? (That's my favourite topic since most of the gLSB 1.9 init.d script changes stem from me, moreover I think I was the first user of this part in lsb.deb.) Areas which need improvement: - Backport lsb.deb from unstable to stable (problem: Python version) - Teach start-stop-daemon to return LSB complient exit codes (this can be partially emulated in init-functions, but doing it in start-stop-daemon is much better) - Checking whether a program is running (for script based daemons) (See Debian bug 167757, LSB bug 677744), the problem is discussed here: http://freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/2003-July/001716.html I probably will deside something, write a patch for gLSB and let it include [given that no-one wants to discuss at lsb-discuss]. If _you_ have any opinion about this, all comments are welcome. otherwise, I think, this part is quite ok. > There's also an upload to woody-proposed-updates of the lsb package > which says "Support LSB 1.2 in woody. Includes all changes through > 1.2-6 in sid." How about supporting 1.3 instead of 1.2? > Task: Find out which LSB spec we would like to meet, v1.9 is out for > reviewing Which doesn't mean that it is not changing. I think the goal is to include SUSv3 instead of SUSv2 (http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/) which means some changes in the commands section and maybe else where. Tobias
