Bug#922423: initscripts: formatting of scripts

[Martin Steigerwald]

Mark Hindley - 18.03.25, 08:41 CET/CEST:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 07:12:27PM +0100, Lorenzo wrote:
> > partially off topic but I think it will help if we recommend to use
> > the /lib/init/init-d-script since by using it you decrease the amount
> > of code that can display inconsistent style.
> 
> Yes. the example LSB script has been init-d-script based for a while.
> 
> This question is really about the scripts packaged in bin:initscripts. I
> am not taking on rewriting them all for init-d-script!

Sure!

I am aware the bug report is about adapting existing scripts, but for now 
your question was on feedback about README.style.

I'd not expect you or anyone else to convert all init scripts. Especially 
as it is not that they would not be working as is. During forky cycle I 
think anyone who likes to contribute on this can do so by providing merge 
requests.

However I think for any new scripts and in case someone likes to 
contribute adapted scripts a mention of init-d-script in README.style 
would be good.

And it can still be an incremental approach but for forky cycle just 
adapting syntax first. And then maybe as people are willing to contribute 
convert at least simpler ones to init-d-script.

However… also there might be scripts where converting to init-d-script 
does not really make sense cause one would need to override the default 
implementation of every action in init-d-script. So maybe mention that 
init-d-script might not benefit very complex init scripts that much if at 
all. But for simpler init scripts an adaption to init-d-script might be 
less work than rewriting certain shell syntax and reformatting.

-- 
Martin