Mark Hindley - 18.03.25, 08:41 CET/CEST: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 07:12:27PM +0100, Lorenzo wrote: > > partially off topic but I think it will help if we recommend to use > > the /lib/init/init-d-script since by using it you decrease the amount > > of code that can display inconsistent style. > > Yes. the example LSB script has been init-d-script based for a while. > > This question is really about the scripts packaged in bin:initscripts. I > am not taking on rewriting them all for init-d-script!
Sure! I am aware the bug report is about adapting existing scripts, but for now your question was on feedback about README.style. I'd not expect you or anyone else to convert all init scripts. Especially as it is not that they would not be working as is. During forky cycle I think anyone who likes to contribute on this can do so by providing merge requests. However I think for any new scripts and in case someone likes to contribute adapted scripts a mention of init-d-script in README.style would be good. And it can still be an incremental approach but for forky cycle just adapting syntax first. And then maybe as people are willing to contribute convert at least simpler ones to init-d-script. However… also there might be scripts where converting to init-d-script does not really make sense cause one would need to override the default implementation of every action in init-d-script. So maybe mention that init-d-script might not benefit very complex init scripts that much if at all. But for simpler init scripts an adaption to init-d-script might be less work than rewriting certain shell syntax and reformatting. -- Martin
