Bug#661109: lsb: Please include helper function for init scripts on upstart-based systems

Hi Didier,

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 06:39:07PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > I'm proposing this change in support of bug #591791, a bug against
> > debian-policy which aims to come up with coherent rules about the inclusion
> > of native upstart jobs in Debian.  This is not a very high-level
> > abstraction, it still requires the init script to work out the correct
> > return value for each invocation.  That's about as high-level as most of
> > the other lsb functions get anyway, but if you'd like something different
> > I'm certainly open to discussing.

> tl;dr: Is the "LSB support package" really the good place to support
> multiple init systems in Debian ?

> I'm mostly fine with the current patch; I just wonder if
> /lib/lsb/init-functions is really the good file/package to have all
> those Debian-specific initscript functions. As was highlighted by the
> #596529 bug, /lib/lsb/init-functions already ships way more functions
> that what the LSB mandates.

> I wonder if moving the Debian-specific (non-LSB) functions to an
> hypothetic /lib/debian/init-functions or alike wouldn't make things
> cleaner, e.g. maintained in a Debian-specific package, such as
> `base-files` or `debian-initsupport` or `whatever`. We could even
> consider that debian-initsupport package as the starting support for all
> the "let's support more than one init system" problem.

> On the other hand, as I expressed in my #596529 wontfix, many packages
> in Debian currently depend on functions implemented in
> /lib/lsb/init-functions and breaking that would certainly break wide
> parts of the archive and just continue to add more functions to
> /lib/lsb/init-functions is the easy way forward.

> What do you think ?

My opinion is that this is best done in the single /lib/lsb/init-functions
file.  The filename is an interface defined in the LSB, but there's nothing
in the LSB that says this interface can't provide additional shell
functions; and having this all in a single place simplifies the interface
for the Debian init scripts.  And if you've followed the discussion on
debian-devel, you know that there's quite a lot of interest in having
simpler init scripts. :)

If you decide not to include this patch in lsb/init-functions, then I guess
I'll propose a new shell include as you describe; but I really don't think
that's the best solution.

Thanks for considering,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
[email protected]                                     [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=9e3U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----