Patrice Dumas (pertusus(a)free.fr) 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-gen...
> 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