[OCF]Updates Resource Agent API

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

--vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2003-08-04T20:19:36,
   Ragnar Kj=F8rstad <linux-ha@ragnark.vestdata.no> said:

> Still changed.=20

True. Not optimal, at least.=20

It's either a) redefine, b) add exit status codes or c) use a different
action.  Or d) go with the deficiencies as LSB has them right now, if we
deem them 'good enough' for our useage anyway, though I'm more inclined
to chose c) if anything and hope LSB follows the lead in the next
revision ;-)

I've brought this up with our LSB guy in the last days as I said, and he
directed me to tytso. I've cc'ed you on that discussion, and I'll
summarize this to the list as soon as we get some feedback.

> Based on the fact that we are an LSB-extention, I think using one of the
> LSB reserved codes would be more right. Especially since what we're
> fixing is something that should ideally be put back into LSB later.

Right, but b) has the problem that it still doesn't address the
shortcomings of having separate exit codes from the other actions. We'll
see what Ted says.

> Here we go again :-)
> I must admit the thought crossed my mind too, but I think introducing a
> new action just for a single exit-code problem is too much.

Well, depends on how annoyed we are by the deficiencies in the status
result codes. I'm _easily_ annoyed, so I'd rather go with this solution
than settle for a compromise ;-)

> For a temporary solution there is the possibility of using exit-code 4,
> indicating unknown status. OK, so it's not the right code either, but it
> would be indicating an error without giving false information about what
> the error actually is. Giving too little information is better than
> giving false information.=20

True. This would be d). I'm not too happy with it, but it might do for
release 1.0...

Let's see whether we can get LSB feedback 'soon' (ie within 7 days or
so) and figure something out, otherwise we go with this...


> If I remember correctly there were two formalities:
> 1. The standard needed to be reformated into Docbook.=20

Does it need to be? OK, someone please step forward, as I've no idea how
to do that ;-)


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Br=E9e <lmb@suse.de>

--=20
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG

Patching up complex systems with even more complexity since 1998.


--vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/MhHKudf3XQV4S2cRAnrvAJ0XlzAeMqE4S42zuSNa3M8RQXyYugCeJOON
JanZr2Obqp9KNQek8mbtBBU=
=B1bE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vEao7xgI/oilGqZ+--