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 1QClcW-0004uP-00 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:36:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFCAB1C043; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:35:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com (mail-gw0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FFD1C021 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so518298gwj.40 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:35:15 -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=pQtMEC8GC5T/Ftzp0kH0bZFnzBWxDQcFat8egUXdzRE=; b=Z2kIJudDsvUgnHNaXiKJx4CYblTTIbCDbMTCTENzOERRBaltzrW2UDJAEf2c+Vj4um o3SbSaXiyEXoU2yd20seFgiBH/OsCtryObgEgj6pv20RwyTwps0Cpgqim0hTZmzb2obN Z/tVEfDJOSfv0MDxx8y8FH+KGVzN5yQg9MiEE= 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=vOkJE7oJG3eJxBcMtE15cZoAn0RUVoIOe2d02qsJJhrAyoVF7rnO775iNKRlJcADqs PEGMzAZ4+leuTaVpkBc26OQ5RoJh4gJAbygitS6C5B2ezLitmtBAzR5KFaLd93wFnr/O uDwSVuU7ZxQOP+3Rbbi+1ssPbBq4Jqecmum34= Received: by 10.91.76.2 with SMTP id d2mr110473agl.208.1303360514734; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:35:14 -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 x32sm1500159ana.38.2011.04.20.21.35.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:34:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:34:59 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc use flag Message-ID: <20110421043459.GA14245@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20110420172419.GC12411@linux1> <1303322561.22688.9.camel@tablet> <20110421043146.38f2966b@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> 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="7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110421043146.38f2966b@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 88ed7a28ca0f9c8d69a160a62ddd6ff7 --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:31:46AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:02:41 +0400 > Peter Volkov wrote: >=20 > > =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 > Why refuse? It could instead assume it needed to only start a service > in, say, a chroot, like ssh or apache2, without assuming anything else > needs to be done. If the service needed anything else, it could be > left to fail on its own terms. =20 This might be possible; I would just change the message in the patch provided to something like, "Warning, openrc did not boot this system, so you may get unpredictable res= ults.\n" > > 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. >=20 > Basically, baselayout/openrc (baselayout-1 has the same problem) would > (try to) shut down your system because it thought something was > terribly wrong. That's bitten me as well when I still thought I could > test services inside a chroot. >=20 > > > 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. >=20 > How should the udev rules be changed to match /any/ init system? For an example of the problem, take a look on your system at /lib/udev/rules.d/90-network.rules. This is part of openrc's hotplug functionality. Basically it tries to run /etc/init.d/net.$INTERFACE start when a network interface is added to the system and rc_hotplug allows it. =20 In net-wireless/bluez, you will see similar integration between openrc and udev. Once bluez is installed, /lib/udev/rules.d/70-bluetooth.rules runs bluetooth.sh which tries to run a service in /etc/init.d. To make things work with /any/ init system, the best way to go would be to make it a practice not to run services from within udev rules or external run scripts like net.sh and bluetooth.sh in /lib/udev. William --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2vs/MACgkQblQW9DDEZTj1UwCgkpPjP1RSnfqEEnhI+AkfUOAZ CT8AmgII5twpG2M1rSbJVx+1ZwtQbg3D =gtzs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH--