On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
<jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/10 12:40 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Actually, for LSB compliance, the 'distribution supplied boot scripts'
>> need not use /lib/lsb/init-functions at all. All that is required is
>> that the scripts provide the LSB header information, and can therefor be
>> manipulated by {install,remove}_initd. That said, I have been working
>> on a replacement for the LFS bootscripts for some time, and have a fully
>> compliant set in LFS/trunk/BOOK/bootscripts/contrib/lsb-v3/, with quite
>> a few of the BLFS scripts completed as well in
>> BLFS/bootscripts/contrib/lsb-v3/.
>
> Awesome work. I've been playing with them and they will definitely fit
> my needs. They're a huge improvement over the current LFS bootscripts.
>
> I did encounter a syntax error, however. The sendsignals script is
> missing ' ; then' after a leading if in two places. This sed fixes it:
>
> sed -i 's...@\]@& ; then@' init.d/sendsignals
>
>> dynamic. I think they are ready for prime time, everyone should really
>> should give them a try on your next build.
>
> I'd be pretty happy if these went into LFS.
>
>> As far as chkconfig, I'm personally not a fan, just because it
>> duplicates the purpose of the LSB tools, but it does allow you to change
>> started runlevels which the LSB tools do not (I'm pretty sure that would
>> conflict with Dan's tools, so if we did that, we'd need to use what RH
>> and others use for the install_initd and remove_initd tools (which
>> require python IIRC). IMO, it would be easier to just edit the runlevel
>> header information in the script rather than using chkconfig.
>
> I can do without chkconfig. I do miss the ability to list what is
> enabled, and only mildly miss the ability to enable/disable specific
> run-levels for a given service.
>
> Having said that, assuming it doesn't break any LSB compliance, I'd be
> happy to add those features into Dan's tools. As it is, if I begin using
> them in earnest, I may just take over maintenance of them.
Feel free to! :) It was more of a "scratch an itch" project, but I
don't actually use them anymore so what I'm doing doesn't even count
as maintenance. There's definitely some ugly code in there from being
a C noob, so you could learn it just by scoping the code for
janitorial work.
http://git.dwcab.com/cgit/initd-tools.git/
Oh, man, some of those commits are pretty embarrassing. It should be
LSB compliant, though. That was the point all that time back.
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
