10:11 a.m.
Harald, I appreciate your dillagence in filing all these bugs, however I think
a change like this needs to go through the Fedora Packaging Committee.
You're asking folks to change content in init scripts when there hasn't been
much / any discussion on the topic. If we're going to make this policy going
forward, it really needs to be in the packaging guidelines, and approved by
FESCo.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
10:38 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
Harald, I appreciate your dillagence in filing all these bugs,
however I think
a change like this needs to go through the Fedora Packaging Committee.
You're asking folks to change content in init scripts when there hasn't been
much / any discussion on the topic. If we're going to make this policy going
forward, it really needs to be in the packaging guidelines, and approved by
FESCo.
So where does that leave the receivers of said bugs, I assume we should wait
until this has been discussed? Leave the bugs open in the mean time?
Regards,
Hans
10:47 a.m.
On Thursday 05 July 2007 11:38:29 Hans de Goede wrote:
So where does that leave the receivers of said bugs, I assume we
should
wait until this has been discussed? Leave the bugs open in the mean time?
Yes, I would recommend leaving the bugs open and untouched for the time being
until this is sorted out.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
11:39 a.m.
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 17:38 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Harald, I appreciate your dillagence in filing all these bugs, however I think
> a change like this needs to go through the Fedora Packaging Committee.
> You're asking folks to change content in init scripts when there hasn't been
> much / any discussion on the topic. If we're going to make this policy going
> forward, it really needs to be in the packaging guidelines, and approved by
> FESCo.
>
>
So where does that leave the receivers of said bugs, I assume we should wait
until this has been discussed? Leave the bugs open in the mean time?
I don't think making init scripts lsb compliant has to wait until some
higher body gives you a thumbs up. Not that it will help much in terms
of boot speed, but the lsb compliance itself is not something that is
controversial or anything, so you could just do it and forget about the
bug...
11:59 a.m.
On Thursday 05 July 2007 12:39 pm, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I don't think making init scripts lsb compliant has to wait until
some
higher body gives you a thumbs up. Not that it will help much in terms
of boot speed, but the lsb compliance itself is not something that is
controversial or anything, so you could just do it and forget about the
bug...
I might agree with you there ("just do it"), but *please* update BZ to note
that the issue is being discussed on fedora-devel so that in the future when
somebody needs to look it up they can at least see that *some* progress is
being made towards resolution and get an idea of where to look.
regards,
--
Jeff MacDonald,
Zoid Technologies <http://zoidtechnologies.com/>
"Web Applications That Suck Less"
11:06 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:11:53AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Harald, I appreciate your dillagence in filing all these bugs,
however I think
a change like this needs to go through the Fedora Packaging Committee.
You're asking folks to change content in init scripts when there hasn't been
much / any discussion on the topic. If we're going to make this policy going
forward, it really needs to be in the packaging guidelines, and approved by
FESCo.
Having LSB compliant init scripts seems to me to be a good thing in most
cases, even though it should certainly not be mandatory, so why not let
maintainers act on the bugreports? And keep it open for those who don't
want to do anything without a policy.
--
Pat
12:32 p.m.
Patrice Dumas (pertusus(a)free.fr) said:
Having LSB compliant init scripts seems to me to be a good thing in
most
cases, even though it should certainly not be mandatory, so why not let
maintainers act on the bugreports? And keep it open for those who don't
want to do anything without a policy.
Note that *any* addition of Required-Start, Required-Stop etc. lines to
init scripts is going to change their bootup/shutdown order. Ergo, be
careful.
Bill
12:35 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 13:32 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Patrice Dumas (pertusus(a)free.fr) said:
> Having LSB compliant init scripts seems to me to be a good thing in most
> cases, even though it should certainly not be mandatory, so why not let
> maintainers act on the bugreports? And keep it open for those who don't
> want to do anything without a policy.
Note that *any* addition of Required-Start, Required-Stop etc. lines to
init scripts is going to change their bootup/shutdown order. Ergo, be
careful.
only for those using prcsys though, right ?
1:15 p.m.
Matthias Clasen (mclasen(a)redhat.com) said:
> Note that *any* addition of Required-Start, Required-Stop etc.
lines to
> init scripts is going to change their bootup/shutdown order. Ergo, be
> careful.
only for those using prcsys though, right ?
No. chkconfig reads those lines to determine priorities.
Bill
1:02 p.m.
On Thursday 05 July 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:
Harald, I appreciate your dillagence in filing all these bugs,
however I
think a change like this needs to go through the Fedora Packaging
Committee. You're asking folks to change content in init scripts when there
hasn't been much / any discussion on the topic. If we're going to make
this policy going forward, it really needs to be in the packaging
guidelines, and approved by FESCo.
Some questions, I'm sure there are more:
Starting an already running service and stopping an already stopped one should
return with 0, fair enough. Should the init script output something in these
cases?
Are there default values for Default-Start/Default-Stop? If I
specify "Default-Start: 2 3 4 5", do I also need to specify "Default-Stop:
0
1 6" or can I leave the latter out? What happens if I do leave it out?
If there's no Default-Start, is Default-Stop needed? Is "Default-Stop: 0 1 2
3 4 5 6" the same as leaving Default-Stop out?
Does chkconfig (when invoked as chkconfig, not the LSB tool symlinks) process
Default-Start and Default-Stop lines? If both the usual chkconfig: line and
Default-Start/Default-Stop are specified and their information differs, which
one prevails? Is "Default-Start: 2 3 4 5" semantically equivalent
to "chkconfig: 2345 xx yy" ie. it means that the service is enabled by
default?
Which keywords are required? None/all/subset? Note that rpmlint currently
gives most likely wrong advice about the keywords, more discussion at
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/71
1:17 p.m.
Ville Skyttä (ville.skytta(a)iki.fi) said:
Does chkconfig (when invoked as chkconfig, not the LSB tool symlinks)
process
Default-Start and Default-Stop lines?
Yes.
If both the usual chkconfig: line and
Default-Start/Default-Stop are specified and their information differs, which
one prevails?
LSB.
Is "Default-Start: 2 3 4 5" semantically equivalent
to "chkconfig: 2345 xx yy" ie. it means that the service is enabled by
default?
Yes.
Bill
2:02 p.m.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ville Skyttä (ville.skytta(a)iki.fi) said:
> Is "Default-Start: 2 3 4 5" semantically equivalent
> to "chkconfig: 2345 xx yy" ie. it means that the service is enabled by
> default?
Yes.
Conversely, what's the proper way to say "not enabled by default?"
"Default-Start: -"? "Default-Start: "? Leaving Default-Start out?
The
documentation didn't seem to cover that.
Jima
2:46 p.m.
On Thursday 05 July 2007, Jima wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Ville Skyttä (ville.skytta(a)iki.fi) said:
>> Is "Default-Start: 2 3 4 5" semantically equivalent
>> to "chkconfig: 2345 xx yy" ie. it means that the service is enabled
by
>> default?
>
> Yes.
Conversely, what's the proper way to say "not enabled by default?"
"Default-Start: -"?
I don't think this would be valid.
"Default-Start: "? Leaving Default-Start out? The
documentation didn't seem to cover that.
Either will probably do, but I'd still like to know whether "Default-Stop: 0 1
2 3 4 5 6" should be added in this case.
FWIW, Debian appears to be encouraging including keywords with empty values:
http://lintian.debian.org/reports/Tinit.d-script-missing-lsb-keyword.html
6146
days inactive
6146
days old
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Bill Nottingham -
Hans de Goede -
Jeff MacDonald -
Jesse Keating -
Jima -
Matthias Clasen -
Patrice Dumas -
Ville Skyttä