Bill Nottingham wrote:
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
I totally agree, my main point was avoiding %conf in the script (which
is the part of the policy AFAIK) and correct return codes and status
call behavior.
Michal
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
