From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2411381F3 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 21:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22B9BE0BA7; Sat, 25 May 2013 21:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26B1EE09C6 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 21:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Nyx.local (dynamic-adsl-84-220-77-8.clienti.tiscali.it [84.220.77.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABBB833E0D2 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 21:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51A12F70.7020709@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 23:38:56 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:22.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/22.0 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 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697) References: <20130525184830.5bb25483@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20130525184830.5bb25483@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 60a6cee5-9656-4975-bdb9-fd79a836b856 X-Archives-Hash: f3102b42e545be76816f3fd42b66e34c On 5/25/13 6:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 > Ben de Groot wrote: > >> I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing >> list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. Seems that *upstream* had to a bit of work in order to support the various bits of systemd (not just the simple unit apparently) I can understand there is some hurry so somebody could gloat "and even Gentoo/Sabayon supports systemd", yet I wouldn't *rush* things and I would consider getting something sorted out sanely for everybody. I doubt I would be treated that nicely if I start spamming all the upstreams about supporting runit and demand they to maintain those init rules. We can be kind with difficult upstreams but just up to a point. That said, I'd rather have set something along the lines of: - get the eselect init machinery in place - decide seriously if we want to consider units (and init.d files) as manpages and threat them in the same way. This way nosystemd in the features would spare you some files as it does for manpages. - repeat the same treatment for openrc and runit runscripts. The alternative of having split packages seems a waste of inodes, probably in the end having the package manager keep track of this data would be better. lu