Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > > Our first step should be to produce guidelines (we have some for RHEL, > > but they are not obeyed), then force the developers to obey that. It is > > no big deal, but having all scripts behaving correctly and in some sense > > the standard way is definitely good think. > > I completely agree. Having glanced through the specification there is > one point that doesn't seems to be desirable, it is the script naming > scheme which seems ugly to me: > http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/scrptnames.html > Although it could be a SHOULD item that upstream is contacted to > register to the lanana. System init scripts are not required to follow the LSB standards. I suspect that following them for something like return codes should be fine, but renaming them just leads to trouble, and should be avoided. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
