From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AF02158086 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 998FC2BC011; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:40:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx10.schiffbauer.net (mx10.schiffbauer.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:222:30c7::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4BB4E07B3 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:39:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 28.235.254.103.dsl.dyn.mana.pf ([103.254.235.28]:46587 helo=bart) by mx10.schiffbauer.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1mt52s-0002WR-A2 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 10:39:58 +0100 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 23:39:46 -1000 From: Marc Schiffbauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Common options missed in OpenRC declarative scripts and how to improve them Message-ID: <20211203093946.3pseouve6irezeph@schiffbauer.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <85f60100-3d55-5905-9db1-d1abb37283e6@gentoo.org> 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV (http://www.clamav.org) X-Archives-Salt: c286e1cd-b972-48ab-ad56-6d0881426ba5 X-Archives-Hash: 71b7fd0aaf7326ced5e12097b5f0316d * Michael Orlitzky schrieb am 02.12.21 um 08:05 Uhr: > On 2021-12-02 08:12:55, Alec Warner wrote: > >=20 > > Can we automate any of it? Emit QA warnings? etc. > >=20 >=20 > I would love to be proven wrong, but I don't think so. We have two > main problems. First, The service scripts are POSIX sh, which is > better than bash, but still can't easily be parsed for semantic > information. >=20 > Second, if the daemon is "special," then the service script is > justified in being similarly unconventional. Unusual runtime behavior > can't be statically detected, and I doubt that the well-behaved > portion of daemons in the tree is large enough that we can warn about > every script that smells a little bit fishy. For "special" daemons, the ebuild could just set a QA_* variable to=20 silence a qa warning if required. -Marc