On 28 Mar 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 28 Mar 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > >> The guys from the LSB (Linux Base Standard) are currently talking with > >> Debian and RedHat to agree on one standard /etc/init.d structure. It > >> will probably be abstracted and have symbolic names and dependencies. > >Eechh.... yet another standard?? Like it wasn't easier to chose one from the > >existing ones... > > As you know, RedHat, Debian, Suse etc have very different bootup > procedures. We don't want ISVs to bother with that. So we need a > system that works across distributions. Hmm... that's right, but it's only a matter of people talking to each other and agreeing upon one policy - the dists that don't follow the chosen standard, can rearrange their layout starting with the next release (yes, I know, it might be quite difficult, but worth the effort). There's no point in creating something new instead of using one of the few, very well tested and proven solutions.
> On debian-devel there has been talk about a better setup with dpkg-like > dependancies. This is a good thing. You don't have to bother with at > which priority to place a new service. You can just say "this service > must be started after networking and name services are available". That's certainly a good thing. > The LSB people are seriously looking at a system already created by > fellow Debian developers which does all this and more. > > Normally I don't like changing something that's working either. I > do not really like things like file-rc. But this is actually something > that is not an alternative but a superiour solution. I agree. I used to think that what RH uses to setup the daemon startup order is good, but file-rc is much better. Well, it's one of those changes that make your life easier IMO. marek