From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Duz0b-0000Vf-SE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:48:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6JKkvfr000077; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:46:57 GMT Received: from lakermmtao06.cox.net (lakermmtao06.cox.net [68.230.240.33]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6JKifTu027493 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:44:42 GMT Received: from gnosis.datanode.net ([68.110.242.20]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050719204440.HNDX4798.lakermmtao06.cox.net@gnosis.datanode.net> for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:44:40 -0400 Received: from nomad.datanode.net (dhcp-2.datanode.net [172.16.1.202]) by gnosis.datanode.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D6E37D for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:43:48 -0400 From: Michael Cummings To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] init script guidelines Message-ID: <20050719164348.549145ab@nomad.datanode.net> In-Reply-To: <1121798402.26224.14.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> References: <16CC9569DA3E4D41A1D4BC25D7B5A16A473AC6@hercules.magbank.com> <1121798402.26224.14.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 84da078e-025c-4e22-a620-b56f20aab811 X-Archives-Hash: 7e15f2895f04b69c6cef92de405071a7 not to detract from the discussion, but...anyone else notice this? On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:40:01 -0400 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked > hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch > the daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream > developers (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've > done the work for them... ;] > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:39:16 -0400 "Eric Brown" wrote: > > They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean implementing some half-baked > hack to resolve the situation. It might be better to instead patch > the daemon in question and send the patches upstream. Upstream > developers (usually) are much more willing to make changes when you've > done the work for them... ;] > I'm beginning to suspect Eric and Chris are the same person. Prove they aren't - show evidence of them independently in the same room at the same time ;) (and being a mid-stream developer, I know *I* like working patches more than 'fix your junk, it broke' reports) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list