On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:27:28PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > So while it might have been nice to unify what system administrations > might see in /etc/init.d scripts, that isn't the primary goal of the > LSB. Hence, the only goal is to register the names of /etc/init.d > scripts so that they don't conflict with LSB applications --- not to > specify whether klogd should be started from /etc/init.d/syslogd, or > /etc/init.d/sysklogd, or whatever. > > - Ted
Ah!!! That makes sense then. I would then request that the LSB chapter regarding init scripts, state something very similar to: <addition> The goal of this chapter is not to dictate the naming standards for LSB compliant distributions, but rather for LSB applications to take note of. The reasoning for reservation and/or LALANA registration, is to prevent LSB applications (ie. distribution independent software using LSB compliant distributions), to not install a script with the same name as an already registered/reserved/commonly used script name. Thus it's the onus of the LSB application providers to ensure that theircw script names do not clash with other equivalent LSB applications nor with reserved/registered script names. </addition> I believe this shuold give the necessary clarity, which I'm currently missng in this chapter on init.d script names. Greetings Hendrik > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
