UVF exception for lsb-3.2

Marc, any feedback about these packages?

$ cat lsb.diffstat
 debian/README.Debian | 36 ++++++++----
 debian/changelog | 54 ++++++++++++++++++
 debian/control | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 debian/copyright | 1
 debian/po/fi.po | 38 ++++++++++++
 debian/po/ja.po | 53 ++++--------------
 debian/po/pt.po | 38 ++----------
 debian/po/ro.po | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
 debian/rules | 4 +
 init-functions | 22 ++++---
 lsb_release | 44 +++++++++++---
 lsbinstall | 31 +++++++++-
 12 files changed, 362 insertions(+), 213 deletions(-)

+ [ -n "$sig" -o "$sig" = 15 -o "$sig" = TERM ] && is_term_sig=yes

Nack on this change; I know it's standard practice for the LSB functions to explode miserably under set -e, but killproc currently does not do this, and init scripts may reasonably rely on a set-e-clean killproc. In fact, there's one init script on my machine, /etc/init.d/atd, which does - the function doesn't behave in an *LSB*-clean manner under set -e, but it does function, so this would be a regression.

Everything else changed here appears to be an improvement, so if you can correct this regression I'm ok with this.

The new lsb package has been uploaded and passed through NEW, so closing out this bug.

This patch contains one more idiosyncrasy, namely, on line 90 and 91:

        /bin/pidof -o %PPID $1
        status="$?"

I suspect that this needs to become:

        /bin/pidof -o %PPID $1 || status="$?"

Also, the changelog does not refer to this bug report in any way, which I understood to be a requirement for a patch.

Debdiff attached, implementing Onno's changes.

Matthias, should the lsb package be merged with Debian for Intrepid before applying this change? As it's only 2 lines changing, it may not matter...

Thanks,
:-Dustin

Ah, already applied in current intrepid.