Re: lsbinstall (was: Announce: LSB 3.0 RC1 is out)

On Wed, May 04, Tobias Burnus wrote:

> 
> **** LSBINSTALL ***
> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-generic/LSB-generic/lsbinstall.html

> - init
> All LSB 1.x and 2.x complient Linuxes have /etc/init.d/ to which 
> LSB-[12].x-complient init scripts have to be installed.
> I don't see any reason to change this in LSB 3. This prevents 
> package-based tracking of the init script, creates extra files (the 
> not-yet-lsbinstalled init file has to be somewhere) and makes LSB-1.x- 
> and 2.x-complient applications incompatible with 3.x. (For config file 
> vs. not, see below.)
> CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME THE ADVANTAGE OF lsbinstall COMPARED TO 
> INSTALLING IN /etc/init.d/ DIRECTLY?
> (If there is a good reason, I don't mind "lsbinstall -t init". ;)

I can also only see problems with the new approach. The biggest is,
that this file is no longer under the control of a package manager.

 
> - profile
> Similar to init: What is the advantage of copying the file around 
> instead of putting it into /etc/profile.d/ directly (using the LANANA 
> name space)?

I see no advantage, too, only the same problems as with the init
scripts. Somebody has to cleanup the system, and now the package
creator and not the package manager is responsible for this. This
did never work in the past, why should it now?

And the package manager has a lot of additional checks and 
knowledge about the system to detect, avoid and solve conflicts.
Should we really reimplement it again in lsbinstall?

  Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Kukuk         http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/      [email protected]
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH       Maxfeldstr. 5       D-90409 Nuernberg
--------------------------------------------------------------------    
Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE  2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B