[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0009843]: [patch] /etc/init.d/asterisk is not "Linux Standard Base" compatible

[noreply at bugs.digium.com]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=9843 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                ibc
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   9843
Category:                   Core/Configuration
Reproducibility:            always
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     new
Asterisk Version:           1.4.4 
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A  
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Disclaimer on File?:        No 
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             05-31-2007 05:14 CDT
Last Modified:              01-11-2008 22:21 CST
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    [patch] /etc/init.d/asterisk is not "Linux Standard
Base" compatible
Description: 
As we can read at
http://www.linux-foundation.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html:

"For all other init-script actions, the init script shall return an exit
status of zero if the action was successful. Otherwise, the exit status
shall be non-zero, as defined below. In addition to straightforward
success, the following situations are also to be considered successful":

- "running start on a service already running"

But this is not true since "/etc/init.d/asterisk start" return 1 if
Asterisk was already running. It should return 0.

In fact this is because the default behaviout of "start-stop-daemon" which
returns error (1) after "start" if the service was already running. So it
could be Debian issue.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 pkempgen - 01-11-08 22:21  
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Maybe not the best place to ask, but it's somehow related:
tzafrir, would you mind telling us *why* you think safe_asterisk
is bad? Is it because there are problems with the script in the
way it is done? (I know it could be done better.) Is it because
you don't like watchdogs for daemons in general?
And if safe_asterisk is so bad, why does it still exists? 

Issue History 
Date Modified   Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
01-11-08 22:21  pkempgen       Note Added: 0076790                          
======================================================================