mand line arguments
for init scripts to function normally.
(Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to a requirement in the
future, if the interfaces were clearly defined and there was some good
reason for LSB applications to be mucking with init scripts provided
by the system... for now, t
umber of packages as it is, without pulling in all of GNOME and KDE
too} unless some sort of modularization is pursued.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Instructor and Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi
208 Deupree Hall - 6
uses the init
functionality so we can test our implementation. (The apache package
*could*, but the prerm and postinst scripts appear to be Red Hat
scripts with all the actions commented out.)
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
ionale would clear some of this stuff up. (i.e. "We required the
status argument because some distributions have tools that depend on
it." versus "We required the status argument because some applications
need to learn the state of services started by init.")
Chris
--
C
.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200202/msg01335.html
and what I have so far (including a few minor fixes) is:
http://people.debian.org/~lawrencc/lsb_1.1.0-2.tar.gz
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Computer Systems Manager, Physics and A
On Feb 19, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:09:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:42:38PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > > I would lobby to change the spec not
On Feb 19, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > Will do. The uid/gid 1 issue is definitely an issue; Debian probably
> > can't make that change, and I suspect many other LSB implementations
> > would trip over it too if they have any POSIX alre
