On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 21:16 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Thanks, Dustin. I'm holding off on integrating these patches until I > get 3.2-12 into testing; adding functionality would break the spirit > of the freeze, but I'll plan on getting status_of_proc() into unstable > soon after that migration happens (hopefully soon).
Sounds great, thanks! > BTW, we may want to consider specifying this interface and the > enhanced init logging functions for a future iteration of the LSB > proper. By "LSB proper", do you mean the LSB specification itself, or something else? If you mean the specification, see the link I mentioned in my initial bug report: * http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html Quoting: If the status action is requested, the init script will return the following exit status codes. 0 program is running or service is OK 1 program is dead and /var/run pid file exists 2 program is dead and /var/lock lock file exists 3 program is not running 4 program or service status is unknown 5-99 reserved for future LSB use 100-149 reserved for distribution use 150-199 reserved for application use 200-254 reserved status_of_proc() currently returns whatever status pifofproc() returns. pidofproc() handles returns of [0,1,3,4]. It could easily be made to handle case 2 as well. I'll open a new bug and send a patch. -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Server Developer Canonical, LTD [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/83A61194
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
