On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:24:56 +0200, Bill Allombert
<email address hidden> 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 them. Heck, even the LSB says nothing more about the
>> status action (apart from specifying some exit codes).
> Then the proposal is quite useless. Policy already allow initscript
> to implement a status option. The only point of mention it in policy
> is to get some amount of consistency among those that implement it.
>> At this point, there are no existing standards or practices for it
>> to warrant a more explicit policy; once we figure out, in practice,
>> what would work best, we can _then_ try making policy, IMHO.
> At keast the LSB document it, see LSB 20.2:
> status print the current status of the service
> If the status action is requested, the init script will return the
> following exit status codes. {SNIP]
> What is exactly printed is distro-specific, but as far as Debian is
> concerned, we should propose something consistent with what is
> printed by the other options(start stop, etc).
Then I suggest you come up with a draft, see how it could be
implemented by a bunch of scripts in /etc/init.d, incorporate the
feedback that shall result, and go at it again; when the design of
the status action has stabilized, and field tested, _then_ we come
back and implement this in policy.
Perhaps you should start out with coming up with a
recommendation in developers reference, and see how well that initial
recommendation plays out? I think it would be a good idea to put the
final, poliched status action specification into policy, but I think
doing initial design by policy is not such a great idea.
manoj
--
The existence of god implies a violation of causality.
Manoj Srivastava <email address hidden> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:24:56 +0200, Bill Allombert
<email address hidden> 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 them. Heck, even the LSB says nothing more about the
>> status action (apart from specifying some exit codes).
> Then the proposal is quite useless. Policy already allow initscript
> to implement a status option. The only point of mention it in policy
> is to get some amount of consistency among those that implement it.
>> At this point, there are no existing standards or practices for it
>> to warrant a more explicit policy; once we figure out, in practice,
>> what would work best, we can _then_ try making policy, IMHO.
> At keast the LSB document it, see LSB 20.2:
> status print the current status of the service
> If the status action is requested, the init script will return the
> following exit status codes. {SNIP]
> What is exactly printed is distro-specific, but as far as Debian is
> concerned, we should propose something consistent with what is
> printed by the other options(start stop, etc).
Then I suggest you come up with a draft, see how it could be
implemented by a bunch of scripts in /etc/init.d, incorporate the
feedback that shall result, and go at it again; when the design of
the status action has stabilized, and field tested, _then_ we come
back and implement this in policy.
Perhaps you should start out with coming up with a
recommendation in developers reference, and see how well that initial
recommendation plays out? I think it would be a good idea to put the
final, poliched status action specification into policy, but I think
doing initial design by policy is not such a great idea.
manoj www.debian. org/%7Esrivasta />
--
The existence of god implies a violation of causality.
Manoj Srivastava <email address hidden> <http://
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C