Open for comments/corrections/modifications...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
Harald Hoyer wrote :
Open for comments/corrections/modifications...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
Won't the unconditional fdr_status execution in that template always output something? (not to mention that it'll always be run even when completely unneeded)... I'd move it into the "cases" where it's needed, or maybe even inside the start() and stop() functions to make the restart cases shorter and cleaner.
I also don't really like hardcoding "fdr" where "rh" was before...
Matthias
Matthias Saou schrieb:
Harald Hoyer wrote :
Open for comments/corrections/modifications...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
Won't the unconditional fdr_status execution in that template always output something?
correct
(not to mention that it'll always be run even when completely unneeded)... I'd move it into the "cases" where it's needed, or maybe even inside the start() and stop() functions to make the restart cases shorter and cleaner.
good point
I also don't really like hardcoding "fdr" where "rh" was before...
hardcoding?
Matthias
On Thursday 30 August 2007, Harald Hoyer wrote:
I also don't really like hardcoding "fdr" where "rh" was before...
hardcoding?
The point I believe is that if we want a separate function in the init script template to be invoked for the status action, plain "status" cannot be used because there already is a function by that name in /etc/init.d/functions so it needs to have some other name. A "fdr_" prefix is IMHO as good as anything but some people don't like it.
One way to solve it would be just to invoke the "status" from /etc/init.d/functions in the "status" action case and ditch the current separate fdr_status function.
I think I'm a bit confused. The new initscript example on the wiki does not source /lib/lsb/functions. I thought there was something special about those as opposed to the implementation in /etc/init.d/functions and one of the driving forces behind having to edit every initscript.
Also, for some reason the wike page I'm looking at has 'rh_' prefixes and not 'fdr_' prefixes. Am I looking at the wrong page?
Harald Hoyer (harald@redhat.com) said:
Open for comments/corrections/modifications...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
# config: # pidfile: # processname: # probe:
are all not used by anything; not sure we want to specify them. In fact, 'probe' dates back to *linuxconf*. Ick.
Probably should explain that starting by default with 'Default-Start' is generally discouraged.
[ "$NETWORKING" ] tests are crack and should be removed.
/var/lock/subsys/$foo needs to match the init script name, not the daemon name.
Bill
Bill Nottingham schrieb:
Harald Hoyer (harald@redhat.com) said:
Open for comments/corrections/modifications...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript
# config: # pidfile: # processname: # probe:
are all not used by anything; not sure we want to specify them. In fact, 'probe' dates back to *linuxconf*. Ick.
Probably should explain that starting by default with 'Default-Start' is generally discouraged.
[ "$NETWORKING" ] tests are crack and should be removed.
/var/lock/subsys/$foo needs to match the init script name, not the daemon name.
Bill
Removed, revised.. please review.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Harald Hoyer -
John Dennis -
Matthias Saou -
Ville Skyttä