On Feb 20, Stuart Anderson wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > I guess this will come off as smart, but if it is "controlled", I > > would have expected someone to write down why this section was > > written in the first place. > > Good point. In fact, how to maintain a rational as part of the document > was discussed. At the time, it didn't seem critical to include the rational > in the standards document. (You can have a good debate about wether rational > is appropriate for the normative parts of a standards). Anyway, because we > all learn from what we do, it now seems that having the rational would be > helpful.
If nothing else, a rationale would help flesh things out for people doing a clean-room implementation. I for one was mystified about the init runlevel section, and also had trouble figuring out what was supposed to apply just to LSB *applications* and what applies to LSB implementations. (For example, do all init scripts on a system have to comply with LSB's specification, i.e. regarding return codes and arguments, or just the ones provided by LSB conforming applications?) Rationale would clear some of this stuff up. (i.e. "We required the status argument because some distributions have tools that depend on it." versus "We required the status argument because some applications need to learn the state of services started by init.") Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi 125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765
