Initscripts and LSB compliance

[Bill Nottingham]

Patrice Dumas (pertusus at free.fr) said: 
> > Our first step should be to produce guidelines (we have some for RHEL, 
> > but they are not obeyed), then force the developers to obey that. It is 
> > no big deal, but having all scripts behaving correctly and in some sense 
> > the standard way is definitely good think.
> 
> I completely agree. Having glanced through the specification there is
> one point that doesn't seems to be desirable, it is the script naming
> scheme which seems ugly to me:
> http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/scrptnames.html
> Although it could be a SHOULD item that upstream is contacted to
> register to the lanana.

System init scripts are not required to follow the LSB standards. I suspect
that following them for something like return codes should be fine, but
renaming them just leads to trouble, and should be avoided.

Bill