El jue, 21-04-2011 a las 14:30 -0500, William Hubbs escribió:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:20:32PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mié, 20-04-2011 a las 22:02 +0400, Peter Volkov escribió:
> > > В Срд, 20/04/2011 в 12:24 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
> > > > The author of the bug feels that the way to fix this is for us to put a
> > > > check in openrc that makes it refuse to run services if it was not used
> > > > in the boot process.
> > > 
> > > This is good idea to have in any case since I remember my system went
> > > crazy after I've tried to start some service inside chroot.
> > > 
> > > > This may work; however, I do not feel that it addresses the root cause
> > > > of the bug. I feel that the root cause is packages unconditionally
> > > > installing udev rules which assume everyone uses openrc.
> > > 
> > > I'd voted to have both implemented.
> > > 
> > 
> > I would vote for the first one, I still don't like "openrc" USE flag
> > approach much because:
> > 1. Would need to rebuild some packages when switching between init
> > systems.
> 
> I don't think you can get away from this, no matter how you approach
> it. The other approach I thought of is to include the udev pieces
> directly in openrc and make it possible to build openrc with or without
> udev integration. That will still mean you have to rebuild openrc though
> if you want udev support.
> 

With mgorny's approach looks like recompiling wouldn't be needed :-/


> > 2. I remember (from "logrotate" USE flag case) that using an USE flag
> > for simply installing or not a file is not usually preferred :-/
> 
> In the logrotate use flag case, that decision was made because a user
> can use INSTALL_MASK="/etc/logrotate.d" in make.conf to block those
> files. But that argument definitely does not apply here. If the user
> doesn't want this support what should he set INSTALL_MASK to?
>  

That's true, thanks for the explanation :)

>  William
>