From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from www.aleph-null.tv (mbutcher206.dsl.frii.net [216.17.171.206]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA502018EF7 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:02:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from there (mbutcher204.dsl.frii.net [216.17.171.204]) by www.aleph-null.tv (Postfix) with SMTP id C1D4E17224; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:31:04 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: mbutcher Organization: Aleph-Null, Inc. To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org, Yannick Koehler Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/init.d Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:52:55 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] References: <3C8CEDD8.2000907@colubris.com> <20020311180248.GB1380@littlethulu.craigthulu.com> <3C8CF48D.5000106@colubris.com> In-Reply-To: <3C8CF48D.5000106@colubris.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20020311163104.C1D4E17224@www.aleph-null.tv> Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 4275129b-b1a4-4640-85ea-7a9f533a16fc X-Archives-Hash: 18c644b5896a7fbb280ca3652765c2b6 Interesting suggestions, but to me your solution looks more complex than the status quo. Now, instead of just merging the files by hand, I have to: 1) Manage another set of scripts in another place (/etc/user.d), which makes troubleshooting harder. 2) Deal with another set of config files (If I'm reading your second paragraph correctly), which might break if a new ebuild adds or removes options that this config file must have. 3) Worry that any time I update a package, one of the scripts that _was_ playing nicely will now be broken without giving me so much as a warning. If we used your proposal for '.modif' scripts, then updating a build might never warn us of the changes that _did_ take place, and _should_ be handled differently in the custom script. If we added the functionality to portage to warn us when a config script changed, then... well, we'd be back to where we started. Also, I'd challenge the claim that 85-90% of Gentoo users do not alter their init scripts. That may be true for Red Hat or Mandrake (though users of those do have to update /etc/sysconfig files instead, which isn't any better to me). To me, the attractive part about the way it works now is that it is simple and straightforward. I feel like I am in control of things when I update a package. It took me (and probably most people on this list) a minimal amount of time to learn the scheme, and now I rue the days when I used to spend hours debugging problems in Red Hat init scripts (only to have my fixes overwritten the next time I upgraded with RPM). I understand that the current way might slow you down if you're running a lot of services. But to me, that's a small price to pay for soundness of mind and simple elegance. Matt On Monday 11 March 2002 11:16 am, Yannick Koehler wrote: > Craig M. Reece wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 12:48:08PM -0500, Yannick Koehler spoke thusly: > >>Guys, > >> > >> not sure for anyone else but is init.d really need to be protected? > >> I mean does someone really change files in that directory (other than > >>adding or removing)? > >> > >> That dir should always get merged. It would also get really nice of > >> the portage could detect that no changes has been made to the file since > >>its installation and therefore merge it without any issues. > >> > >> Like if the protected config file's time were saved in a temp files > >> that portage would look into before merging to see if the date has or > >> not change since the last install. > > > > Yes it needs to be protected. I, for instance, have my own version of > > pcmcia in there that I don't want stepped on. Also, I have a couple of > > other custom scripts for things not in portage yet; and when they are in > > portage, I want to be able to compare the differences before using one > > or the other. > > _______________________________________________ > > gentoo-dev mailing list > > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org > > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev > > The reasoning I have is that those are scripts, and not config files. > If ... instead of modifying pcmcia script for example like you > mentionned you were to cp pcmcia pcmcia.modif and rc-update add > pcmcia.modif default / rc-update del pcmcia default the system would > work and you'll never get concerned about the new pcmcia scripts. > > If you changes those scripts maybe it's even better to tell people about > your changes as they may get implemented such that the script itself > read a config files (like net.eth0) so that other people can re-use your > modifications. > > And maybe a user's scripts directory should exists, something like > /etc/user.d where people can move their custom scripts and the stuff > behind rc-update would got here first and if it doesn't found the script > then to /etc/init.d. > > Yannick Koehler > > _______________________________________________ > gentoo-dev mailing list > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev