[OCF] ocf-shellfuncs standardization - Comments? Objections?

[Alan Robertson]

Nick Stoughton wrote:
>>Nick:  If you would consider withdrawing or modifying your bugzilla to 
>>the LSB until we finalize our own discussion, that would be much 
>>appreciated.
> 
> It turns out that my bugzilla comment was a dup of an earlier one, and
> has been closed as a duplicate. However, the timeline has this as a
> defect to be fixed in release 3.1 (to be published late September 2005
> if all goes according to schedule).
> 
> Please add your comments to the bug:
> http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1007
> 
> This is a totally open process....you get your comments added to the
> bug, and they will be taken into account. Just because I noticed a
> problem and filed a bug and proposed a solution, doesn't mean that
> others cannot comment on it and propose alternative ways of fixing the
> problem.
> 
> I'd like some concrete words to put in the base spec; this will be an
> ISO standard, and "print a message" is insufficiently precise. How do
> you write a test to prove that a message was printed? How do you know
> where to look for the message? Language such as "If the XYZ environment
> variable is not set, then a message is printed to the standard output"
> is acceptable. But the current words are not enough and will be fixed!

It worked for fprintf :-)

But, more seriously...

_Which_ are you trying to test?  The base LSB capabilities?  An LSB init 
script?  A vendor's overall init process?  Are you trying to test them 
in an boot environment?  Standalone?  Are you going allow adding things 
to the messages printed?  Or do they have to be printed exactly as they 
are (the message, the whole message, and nothing but the message)?

The point of the API is that they are redirected to a place where they 
are visible (if requested) during the boot sequence.

That's the requirement - which is driven by the intended purpose.  If 
you left out "(if requested)" for example, then the implementation would 
have no option for a less-scary boot sequence like basically all Linux 
vendors do now.  Similar things happen if you add much beyond what the 
purpose requires.



-- 
     Alan Robertson <alanr at unix.sh>

"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship...  Let me 
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William 
Wilberforce