You really want to leave service names the same. don't change them gratuitously. It confuses users. Secondly, 'alsa' is the correct name. it names the general service. Just because it happens to call ONE program called alsactl doesn't mean the whole script should be called that. Compare to more complicated services like 'ntpd' - it can call ntpdate before it calls ntpd. what would you call the script then? imho, it should have been called ntp, but oh well. Consider also 'nfs' - but imho that's deceiving. it should've been called nfs-base, nfs-server, and nfs-client since you curently have 'nfslock' which is needed for both client and server. It's not nearly as simple as you might think. For example, nfs depends on 'portmap'. imho dependencies like this need to be expressed somehow, but the existing infrastructure doesn't do that. - Kevin On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:39:19 +0100, James Wilkinson <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nifty Hat Mitch wrote: > > First off, run these from a command line: > > > > # service --status-all > > and > > # chkconfig --list > > > > This will give you a list of all the services and their status. > > > > IMO, We should not have to look at the scripts. If you find something > > in the output of these two that does not have a man page post a > > question here. (man -k something; apropos something). > > > > Those of us that know what the service is should answer and one of us > > should bugzilla a man page request. With a little discussion we > > should be able to discover what it is that people need to know and > > some context to make the description and discussion in the new man > > page valuable to the new user. > > This sounds a good idea, but... > > * I think we'd want to rename certain services rather than write new > manpages. For example, there is no "alsa" manpage: what would you > put there? > > The alsa service actually runs the alsactl program, which does have > a suitable manpage. So why not rename the service alsactl? > > * Is this information best provided as man pages? The Fedora > Documentation project has yet to publish any documents, but I > honestly think that anyone who can decipher the average manpage can > read comments in a script. Would it make more sense to have this > published as a document somewhere? *That* can point to manpages if > necessary. > > Thoughts? > > James. > > -- > E-mail address: james | "Reliability went through the floor, tunnelled its > @westexe.demon.co.uk | way to the centre of the Earth, and perished in the > | magma." > | -- Saundo > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list >
