Comment 31 for bug 203169

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:21:57 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <email address hidden>
wrote:
> I agree with Manoj's suggestion. The best way to go about it would be to
> draft a complete proposal (including standardizing the output format), start
> patching packages in unstable, and go from there.

Please see the latest patch against lsb-base and comments at:
 * http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=483285

That patch defines a status_of_proc() function. The output format
conforms with the exit codes and log_[success|failure]_msg() functions
as defined in the LSB Reference Specification:
 * http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html

> FWIW, I think it would be appropriate to add an option to start-stop-daemon
> to support this use case. It already has most of the necessary code, and it
> would fit well with its existing interface.

Obviously, getting the library status_of_proc() function (or similar)
into /lib/lsb/init-functions would be the logical first step.

Once that occurs, then patching start-stop-daemon should be simple.

Additionally, various daemons' init scripts would also need a status)
section that would either call status_of_proc or perhaps
start-stop-daemon --status.

Cheers,
--
:-Dustin

Dustin Kirkland
Ubuntu Server Developer
Canonical, LTD
<email address hidden>
GPG: 1024D/83A61194