[OE-core] [PATCH] Add init script (sysv) support for busybox's ntpd

[Laszlo Papp]

I finally decided to get this patch another go, even though still no
busybox daemon has LSB headers, but I would need to ask for some prime
example of LSB headers that I can start off with. Could anyone please
provide me a good example for that from the Yocto project? Thanks.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> Any reason why this feature has never got in? It was submitted more than
> five months ago, and it would have added some feature to the system even if
> not _everything_ right from the beginning?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:59:15PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On 20 March 2014 19:01, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
>> >> >> This init script is adding support for sysv and no more. This is
>> >> >> also
>> >> >> indicated in the first line of the commit message. I am sorry, but I
>> >> >> will not test it systemd and with other systems
>> >> >
>> >> > You're not being asked to test with systemd.  You're being asked to
>> >> > add LSB-standard sysvinit-specific headers to a sysvinit script.
>> >>
>> >> In my understanding, people were referring to two issues:
>> >>
>> >> 1) not working with systemd and what not compat modes. This is not
>> >> something I will test any soon.
>> >
>> > Other people already know it's causing the issues without LSB headers,
>> > so if you just add them, you don't need to test it with systemd, other
>> > people who care about systemd will do that for you or at least be OK
>> > with adding this script, because it will have LSB headers (so it should
>> > work fine in systemd world).
>>
>> If someone is really interested in systemd, et al, unlike me at this
>> point, I guess it is not a big deal to get an LSB header from someone
>> to get it integrated into my change?
>>
>> If no one cares about that, then why bother? So, if someone sends this
>> to me I will integrate it, otherwise there is no point since that
>> means no one cares.
>>
>> But then again, this should not still block the change as it can be
>> added incrementally. I am not sure if it is a good idea to block a
>> feature because it does not provide another feature, too.
>
>