On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 23:10:50 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So since no one had anything to add, here is a concrete proposal. All
> of this reflects current practice, I believe. Since the addition of
> status_of_proc to /lib/lsb/init-functions, this has been quite
> standardized in practice,
So since no one had anything to add, here is a concrete proposal. All
of this reflects current practice, I believe. Since the addition of
status_of_proc to /lib/lsb/init-functions, this has been quite
standardized in practice, and as I wrote earlier, more than half of the
affected packages are al
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:57 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I agree with Manoj's suggestion. The best way to go about it would be to
> draft a complete proposal (including standardizing the output format), start
> patching packages in unstable, and go from there.
Please see th
I agree with Manoj's suggestion. The best way to go about it would be to
draft a complete proposal (including standardizing the output format), start
patching packages in unstable, and go from there.
FWIW, I think it would be appropriate to add an option to start-stop-daemon
to support this use c
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:24:56 +0200, Bill Allombert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I think rather than trying to decree a policy, and over engineer an
>> optional action for an init script meant mostly for user
>> consumption, we should let the developers come up with whatever
>> works best for the
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:10:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:57:35 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:30:55AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> > wrote:
> >> --- policy.sgml.orig 2005-01-19 01:10:37.0 +0100
> >> +++ pol
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:57:35 +0200, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:30:55AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
>> --- policy.sgml.orig 2005-01-19 01:10:37.0 +0100
>> +++ policy.sgml 2005-01-19 01:13:05.0 +0100
>> @@ -5392,13 +5392,17 @@ force-
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:30:55AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
wrote:
> --- policy.sgml.orig 2005-01-19 01:10:37.0 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml 2005-01-19 01:13:05.0 +0100
> @@ -5392,13 +5392,17 @@
> force-reload
> cause the configuration to be r
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.1
Priority: wishlist
Tags: patch
[ Note: I understand that this status suggestion is covered (without a
valid example in #208010) but I believe that LSB compliance also forces
some other things (like exit codes) which is still under discussion.
That's why I'm
9 matches
Mail list logo
