From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QCc4Y-0002cb-Ut for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:24:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7122C1C0B2; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:23:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51ADD1C0B0 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywl2 with SMTP id 2so370857ywl.40 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=40fhe61D17NpTfhrR22d+cHUD+iRoAzJMbiEhAzSaHk=; b=UsVUnEls4nbyWXlTRTXDGXZrzbVX5fDBqUtUBPjofkGFxa3bRr3lZ//2LEaBiCAJSW yQwfWdPXTU18o1991BqXUz9+ziekr0CPFqhUAJjqTxJsoFnf/YGzSSlGkg1QPyDJrPLQ OFMdLpfj2rYPcQj/cZKqz3co1hMpIF5OQUQuw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=f/dZoOou244uSiGHo+um3bmPMCrbTB3uaZMoBBiHMNffCPwhbHH88z3SZrxGR+NcoT U2Z3O73ZptSzGA+t9unthZqT4xWI0bSO5Y4txTWfxFrM5LQuG+CFmW+XbljUm9DvcY5Q yJlQAAZcdYom4xsunBSDp3vdIri904KSUX0ss= Received: by 10.236.197.35 with SMTP id s23mr6647058yhn.57.1303323805753; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-183-49-63.tx.res.rr.com [76.183.49.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p51sm525635yhm.52.2011.04.20.11.23.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:22:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:22:53 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc use flag Message-ID: <20110420182253.GA12829@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20110420172419.GC12411@linux1> <1303322561.22688.9.camel@tablet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1303322561.22688.9.camel@tablet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 845056a664db7725eff13dfb54f67484 --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:02:41PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote: > =D0=92 =D0=A1=D1=80=D0=B4, 20/04/2011 =D0=B2 12:24 -0500, William Hubbs = =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > 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. >=20 > 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. My concern about it though is prefix installs. If I implement something like this, will it not break openrc on prefix systems? William --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2vJH0ACgkQblQW9DDEZThGKgCgqDKKie4RmxCd8v+Xeh//zeRH dt4An2xi4TQ4/VPndBiFYS+FFCdCk7wS =BvtX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--