[Fedora-packaging] LSB initscript ordering issues

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Thu Dec 3 15:39:55 UTC 2009

John Dennis (jdennis at redhat.com) said: 
> In the past we used hardcoded chkconfig start/stop numbers to
> control the order in which services were started and stopped. My
> understanding is that is deprecated (although still supported) but
> the preferred method is the LSB boot facility declarations
> (Required-Start, Should-Start, Required-Stop, Should-Stop). Correct?

I wouldn't say it's *preferred*. It's an alternate method.

> The section describing facility names seems a bit vague to me:
> Shouldn't the guidelines *require* that the LSB block have a
> Provides: declaration which at a minimum includes a name matching
> the initscript?

That's implicitly provided no matter what.

> In addition to the explicit eponymous Provides: what about virtual
> provides? Do we have a set of virtual provide names? (e.g.
> mailserver, webserver, or ldapserver)

No. Those aren't defined in the spec.

> The guidelines also state that an initiscript should never be marked
> as %config and instead import configuration settings from
> /etc/sysconfig/$name. But what about the case where a service may
> have a variety of boot dependencies depending on how it's
> configured? For example a service might be configured to optionally
> use mysql vs. postgres, or to use LDAP vs. SQL so it will have boot
> dependencies on particular services which cannot be hardwired ahead
> of time.

The LSB spec won't help you here, alas.

> I doubt the LSB block parsing logic handles "includes" from
> /etc/sysconfig, or does it?

It does not.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list