On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robby Workman wrote: >> Attached is an "idea" patch - in other words, I don't intend for this >> to be considered for committing upstream; rather, I'm really just >> wanting to flesh out whether what I have in mind is horribly bad. :-) >> >> Here's the patch (it's also attached, in case some mail clients munge >> the content. My thoughts are *in* the patch ; responses? :-) > >> +# Also, we (Slackware) have some init scripts that don't have a "status" >> +# directive in them, so maybe using that to check if something is running >> +# won't always work. > > OTOH "service" and the "status" method of init scripts is LSB since quite some > time IIUC, so why not just fix the slackware init scripts?
service is not LSB. It's just a wrapper that makes initializing services straightforward across distros. The LSB says that all services should be installed in /etc/init.d, but it says nothing about how the system will actually execute the scripts. Maybe service should be in the LSB, but it's not. http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/initsrcinstrm.html Robby's point about ambiguous service names is valid, though. Right now, we only call stopservice() for ntpd, but it could be called ntp or nettime or anything else since there's no convention for that. -- Dan _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
