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 5D553138222 for ; Thu, 5 May 2016 05:13:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0181421C08E; Thu, 5 May 2016 05:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AE0621C07F for ; Thu, 5 May 2016 05:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:a63f:ef64:5ee0:c5ff:fe8e:77db]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12504340739 for ; Thu, 5 May 2016 05:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <57297A4F.3020803@gentoo.org> <22313.40676.616721.839369@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <5729A9DD.8010305@gentoo.org> <22313.44037.400256.429688@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20160504085251.GA4024@nemesis.wraeth.lan> <3b010645-c744-5198-5773-e60bf5560667@gentoo.org> <20160504094138.GB4024@nemesis.wraeth.lan> <20160504231254.GA6135@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> From: Patrick Lauer Message-ID: <572AD65C.5090307@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 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 In-Reply-To: <20160504231254.GA6135@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: cc7899f8-18a0-4c9f-b22d-f9698987af40 X-Archives-Hash: cd77dc6d00141f016696f69ae54323e4 On 05/05/2016 01:12 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote: >> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote: >>>>>>> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the >>>>>>> Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch >>>>>>> any init scripts installed from elsewhere. You should look for the >>>>>>> set of installed files instead. >>>>>> How is that relevant here at all? I'm cleaning up portage installed >>>>>> init scripts, [...] >>>>> You are cleaning up only those init scripts that are installed from >>>>> FILESDIR, but you will miss the ones that are installed from a file >>>>> in SRC_URI. >>>> Perhaps an alternate way to do it would be to have a QA check look at >>>> any files installed to ${D}etc/init.d/ and throw a warning if their >>>> shebang is "#!/sbin/runscript" >>>> >>> A repoman check is a much saner approach, I'm not convinced there is >>> sufficient need for this change to begin with, in particular to start >>> touching a wide range of packages. Breaking backwards compatibility in >>> any way should have a darn good reason, and I haven't seen one yet >> I'm not arguing for or against it in general, just in terms of technical >> implementation. >> >> That being said, a repoman check would only catch those distributed in >> ${FILESDIR} as well. My thinking with the above was to also identify >> those installed from distfiles to be handled accordingly. > Actually, you won't need to worry about any qa checks in portage, > because I am going to put a deprecation warning in OpenRC upstream which > will be displayed when a service script invokes runscript instructing > you to convert to openrc-run. > > OpenRC will keep runscript, with this warning, for a while. > > So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: What problem is being solved here?