[lsb-futures] Re: Configuration File Spec part of LSB?

Theodore Ts'o tytso at mit.edu
Sat Jul 13 12:44:58 PDT 2002

On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:03:00PM -0600, Matt Taggart wrote:
> The LSB is interesting in that it's very hard to 'create' standards,
> it's much easier to 'document' existing standards. So if you can convince
> the community(at least starting with the major distributions) to move to
> it then it would be easy to add to the standard. Personally, as a former
> hpux user I have used rc.config.d and agree it's nice.

What Matt said.

Just two things to add.  First of all, to the extent that LSB is
trying to promote cross-distribution compatibility of third-party
provided applications, things like trying to mandate distro's to use
rc.config.d are out of scope, and represent "mission creep" of the
LSB.  In the past, when we've attempted to push either new
functionality or push distro's closer together in ways that haven't
been related to our core goal of cross-distribution compatibility of
applications, we have had decidedly mixed results.

That being said, I think there is a lot of merit in the your
rc.config.d proposal, and to the extent that it removes the need to
edit /etc/init.d scripts directly, it is certainly a Good Thing.

The second observation I would make is that given the merger of SuSE,
Turbo Linux, Caldera, etc. into the United Linux distribution, if
you're right that SuSE is already using the rc.config.d system here
are some things that could be done to popularize it.

1)  Try to convince Red Hat to adopt this scheme.

2)  Try to convince Debian to adopt this scheme.  (Be prepared for
nasty politics.)

3) Suggest that this directory be documented in the Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard.

						- Ted

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-discuss-request at lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster at lists.linuxbase.org

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list