> Instead, LSB scripts would only be allowed to depend on certain > LSB-defined dependencies: network, syslog, netdaemons, etc. This > means that it would be very simple for the initscript installer to map > that to a specific SysV rc.d SXX and KXX number.
So you are planning to delete "Provides:" from the text? I don't see anything in the current draft (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/lsb-spec-0002/msg00015.html was the latest I found) which implies the above (yet :-)). Speaking of which, you planning to check this into CVS? But you may have me convinced about the need for the basic "Requires-start: $network" functionality (especially if the diversity between distributions in the S10network numbers is real - I haven't gone and checked myself). Let me expand slightly: * sysadmins could still install scripts with "ln -s" - the LSB "Requires-start" line would only be needed if the script is installed via install_initd (which would be required for LSB applications, but not for manual operation). * sysadmins could still re-arrange the scripts manually. Basically, Ted's draft doesn't say whether one uses links, or r2d2 (which puts scripts in init.d but uses a config file to specify which ones gets run, as I understand it), or some other mechanism. * Any thoughts on having "Requires-start" on the install_initd command line versus in the script? The former kind of sounds like it could be a mess (especially if people are running install_initd manually rather than via a script), but it seemed worth at least asking the question.
