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

Hello,

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>>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.
>>    
>
>We were forced in the LSB 2 timeframe to agree to allow
>software to be installed in other methods than using the
>native package manager, and lsbinstall was partly a way
>to handle that. It may be that allowing that was a mistake.
>Would you guys consider it acceptable to have files copied
>into /etc/init.d by such non-package-manager installs?
>  

Why not. It does not matter whether the ISV's uninstall.sh forgets a 
"lsbinstall -r -t initd $file" or a "rm -f /etc/init.d/$file" as both is 
equally bad; but for those who indeed use RPMs, they can no longer 
forget to do so. (Especially since there is now the nice "lsbinstall -t 
package", more vendors will be inclined to use packages.) And since init 
scripts and cron scripts live in a name space, there shouldn't be any 
problem.
(Profile scripts need also to live in the LANANA name space, which 
needes to be stated somewhere.)

(Unfortunally, one can still neither install fonts with the package 
manager (no defined location) nor inet-started daemons (inetd.conf vs. 
xinetd.d/ problem). Well, since there is no easy way out, it makes sense 
to allow lsbinstall to copy such files.)

Tobias