Bug 633349

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #521669 +++

This is a tracking bug for initscripts that are not compliant with:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit/Initscripts

--- Additional comment from kevin on 2009-09-07 13:12:02 EDT ---

This wiki page is not a Fedora guideline. ;) 

Please point people to the real page: 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript

Which likely has differences (although all the bugs I see off hand do seem to be valid against the real guideline page. )

--- Additional comment from dkovalsk on 2009-09-07 13:54:41 EDT ---

Thanks Kevin!

I'll update the info.

--- Additional comment from wtogami+fedora on 2009-09-08 17:36:45 EDT ---

Who decided that LSB compliance is a requirement?  I might be missing something.  Could you please clarify?

--- Additional comment from wtogami+fedora on 2009-09-10 09:24:19 EDT ---

Stop calling it LSB compliance, since that isn't actually what the bugs are?

--- Additional comment from psplicha on 2009-09-14 08:16:28 EDT ---

(In reply to comment #4)

> Stop calling it LSB compliance, since that isn't actually what
> the bugs are?  

Good point! If we're trying to make the initscripts compliant, we
should really make absolutely clear to what specification. If this
is not to be LSB but Fedora Guidelines, let's call it accordingly.

Anyway, why do we have the two Fedora initscript wiki pages? This
is not a good way how to create a standard. I suggest to merge the
two pages (seems to me that the FCNewInit/Initscripts is almost
copy and paste of LSB anyway).

One more question: Is it really good idea to enforce the "reload"
action for all services? I can imagine that some services really
do not support reloading config file on-the-fly and reporting
status code 3 [unimplemented feature (for example, "reload")]
(this example being th part of the guideline ?!) is a valid use
case. (There's always the force-reload if we don't care whether
the service function will be interrupted or not.)

--- Additional comment from dan on 2009-09-21 05:26:14 EDT ---

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> 
> > Stop calling it LSB compliance, since that isn't actually what
> > the bugs are?  
> 
> Good point! If we're trying to make the initscripts compliant, we
> should really make absolutely clear to what specification. If this
> is not to be LSB but Fedora Guidelines, let's call it accordingly.
> 
> Anyway, why do we have the two Fedora initscript wiki pages? This
> is not a good way how to create a standard. I suggest to merge the
> two pages (seems to me that the FCNewInit/Initscripts is almost
> copy and paste of LSB anyway).

It would be also helpful to have new sample initscript that's compliant with the requirements and that will be discussed in the Packaging Commitee and/or in the developers community even if this action is primarily targeted on RHEL6. All maintainers developing their own versions isn't really how it should work ...

> One more question: Is it really good idea to enforce the "reload"
> action for all services? I can imagine that some services really
> do not support reloading config file on-the-fly and reporting
> status code 3 [unimplemented feature (for example, "reload")]
> (this example being th part of the guideline ?!) is a valid use
> case. (There's always the force-reload if we don't care whether
> the service function will be interrupted or not.)

--- Additional comment from fedora-triage-list on 2009-11-16 07:01:25 EST ---


This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 12 development cycle.
Changing version to '12'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

--- Additional comment from psklenar on 2010-02-10 08:47:26 EST ---

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> It would be also helpful to have new sample initscript that's compliant with
> the requirements and that will be discussed in the Packaging Commitee and/or in
> the developers community even if this action is primarily targeted on RHEL6.
> All maintainers developing their own versions isn't really how it should work

Which service and which version of this service is LSB 'almost' compliant now?





Creating RHEL6 tracking bug and splitting off Fedora.