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 1OnbTU-0006Fm-Gs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:10:25 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07ED1E0913; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:10:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39057E079D for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.188.1] (82-71-33-97.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.71.33.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E7FE1B4031; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C72B973.2090505@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:09:55 +0100 From: Mike Auty User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100811 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.2 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: =?UTF-8?B?T2xpdmllciBDcsOqdGU=?= Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo References: <201007041630.07537.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> <20100704133949.0cda055a@gentoo.org> <4C30EA89.4020806@gentoo.org> <4C314233.8030809@gentoo.org> <1282575945.23781.35.camel@gdartigu.lan.rep.sj> <1282584393.4313.6.camel@TesterTop4> In-Reply-To: <1282584393.4313.6.camel@TesterTop4> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 36620c7d-e7c4-4244-b665-9b32845e219b X-Archives-Hash: 04fd0b2cfb5366beb6ad14978b26089d -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Cr=C3=AAte wrote: >=20 > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. >=20 Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the different-yet-again language that goes with it. Why not rely on a prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds? I'm happy to accept that there might be some very good reasons (respawning a shell for each script is time consuming/expensive?), but without describing what those reasons are, it's not a direction we should just be following blindly... Mike 5:) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkxyuXMACgkQu7rWomwgFXrqSwCgjANV5zpo/uYrML+q1mCXHVgI ghcAn2oRJMUl4V+L4UHhEABYUs58e9c5 =3Djen/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----