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