Steve Langasek wrote: > Well, my first question is why, irrespective of how valuable the LSB itself > is to them, any ISV would choose to get their apps "LSB certified". The > benefits of having one's distro LSB certified are clear, but what does an > LSB certification give an ISV that their own internal testing can't? Or do > you really mean there are no ISVs *writing* to the LSB?
My experience as a developer who's tried to write an app to use the LSB
(only the init script interface) is that it's poorly enough specified
and/or implemented divergently within the spec to the point that I had
to test my implementation on every LSB distriution I wanted to support,
and might as well have written distro-specific code in the first place.
Just for example, from my changelog:
* Seems start_daemon on mandrake 9.1 wants just the name, not the path,
so changed that. Note that my reading of the lsb says the path should
be there, and the debian implementation agrees. For now, supporting
mandrake is more important.
* Similarly, {remove,install}_initd on Mandrake seems not to want the full
path of /etc/init.d/mooix. This is clearly a violation of
the lsb, but for now I will cater to it.
* Remove set -e from lsb/init, since on Mandrake the init functions are not
-e safe. (Sheesh.)
* Add chkconfig stuff to lsb/init, since mandrake's sad excuse for a lsb
compliant init system seems to require it.
(This was a bit more than one year ago, distros tested included Debian,
Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSe.)
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
