Marek Habersack wrote:
>
> On 28 Mar 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On 28 Mar 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > >> The guys from the LSB (Linux Base Standard) are currently talking with
> > >> Debian and RedHat to agree on one standard /etc/init.d structure. It
> > >> will probably be abstracted and have symbolic names and dependencies.
> > >Eechh.... yet another standard?? Like it wasn't easier to chose one from
> > >the
> > >existing ones...
> >
> > As you know, RedHat, Debian, Suse etc have very different bootup
> > procedures. We don't want ISVs to bother with that. So we need a
> > system that works across distributions.
> Hmm... that's right, but it's only a matter of people talking to each other
> and agreeing upon one policy - the dists that don't follow the chosen
> standard, can rearrange their layout starting with the next release (yes, I
> know, it might be quite difficult, but worth the effort). There's no point in
> creating something new instead of using one of the few, very well tested and
> proven solutions.
The closer RH gets to becoming the 'de facto' standard, the less
likely they are to be inclined to talk to *anyone* about
'standards' for Linux distros. I fear the point at which RH drops
its interest in LSB and other cooperative discussions about
standards and simply says: "If you want the standard Linux, you
have to buy it from us". Power corrupts, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. And yes, if you haven't figured out by now,
I *don't* trust RH. :-)
>
> > On debian-devel there has been talk about a better setup with dpkg-like
> > dependancies. This is a good thing. You don't have to bother with at
> > which priority to place a new service. You can just say "this service
> > must be started after networking and name services are available".
> That's certainly a good thing.
>
> > The LSB people are seriously looking at a system already created by
> > fellow Debian developers which does all this and more.
> >
> > Normally I don't like changing something that's working either. I
> > do not really like things like file-rc. But this is actually something
> > that is not an alternative but a superiour solution.
> I agree. I used to think that what RH uses to setup the daemon startup order
> is good, but file-rc is much better. Well, it's one of those changes that make
> your life easier IMO.
>
> marek
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
--
Ed C.
