On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 01:29:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Still in chapter 22, Facility Names, it's not clear what value $local_fs
[snip] > In the next section, Script names, I'd like to again suggest that LSB scripts > be named either: > > * lsb-<foo> for LANANA allocated names > or * foo.com-<bar> for names based on the DNS > I'm still not seeing the need for this "registration" etc. I'd rather advise that LSB packages (which would mostly be binary packages) to rather prepend a opt-<script>, and let tho OS/Distribution decide on the names for those installed by the Distribution/OS. > and the remaining namespace be reserved for distributions. This certainly > won't cause any more conflicts with existing practice than the existing > language does, and doesn't seem too much of a burden to place on > LSB application vendors. Further, it allows LSB packages to coexist > with distribution provided packages (/etc/init.d/apache from Red Hat, > /etc/init.d/lsb-apache from the apache group) on the same system should > the sysadmin so desire. > > The real reason I think that's a better way of doing things is that > otherwise Debian needs to register some 350 init.d script names [1], > and needs to worry about an additional 114 that conflict with the LSB's > guidelines. Personally, I think we should avoid this conflict while > we can. (For reference, there are about 40 pre-allocated names listed in > the spec at the moment) > > In particular, if this suggestion is going to be rejected for LSB 1.2, > could this please be considered a request for LANANA to allocate the > names listed at the URL in the footnote? > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
