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

On Wed, May 04, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:

> 
> >> - 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.
> 
> 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?

I would really like to don't see that. It creates more problems with
no real benefit (at least I see none).
 
> >> - 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?
> 
> 
> So it would be both of your preferences that:
> (a) we clearly document that /etc/init.d and /etc/profile.d
> exist and are required for conforming distros, and are managed by
> namespace rules

I would prefer this.

> (b) packages should install needed files directly into
> those directories

I don't like that.

  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