[Fedora-packaging] LSB initscript ordering issues

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Thu Dec 3 20:42:39 UTC 2009

John Dennis (jdennis at redhat.com) said: 
> >It could be that the LSB, dependency style is not flexible enough to work in
> >this instance.  We might be able to work around this with virtual provides,
> >though.  We do want to avoid marking init scripts as %config and eventually,
> >in the indefinite sense, we can use upstart's facilities to do this
> >sort of thing.  So I'm not certain that we'd want to start encouraging
> >people to mix config with the initscripts yet.
> A more careful reading of the LSB spec might indicate this is a moot
> issue after all. If I understand correctly I think this can be
> accomplished by listing *every* optional dependency in the
> Should-Start list.
> If I'm reading it correctly the items in Should-Start will be
> started earlier if and only if they are enabled to start.
> For example if you're dependent on a SQL database and can choose
> between mysql and postgres in your configuration and elect to use
> mysql. Then the initscript would have:
> # Should-Start: mysql postgres
> and all the sysadmin must do is enable mysql to start at boot.
> Because mysql is enabled the mysql dependency will be honored, but
> the postgres dependency will not be honored because it's not
> enabled.

Alas, not until I (or someone) gets around to fixing

Should-Start is listed as optional in the spec, FWIW.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list