On 05/05/16 08:17, Duncan wrote:
> Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted:
>
>> 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?
> For one thing, the namespace issue of runscript being generic, while 
> openrc-run is properly namespaced and thus much less likely to conflict 
> with anything else.
>
> That would be why openrc's upstream maintainer is changing the name, with 
> appropriate deprecation notice for the old one.  Given that, what gentoo 
> has to decide is how it's going to respond to that.  Sure, we /could/ 
> rename the executable to runscript here and be done with it, but that 
> would violate gentoo's policy of defaulting to consistency with upstream 
> unless there's a very good reason not to.
>
> The fact that the packages upstream maintainer happens to be a gentoo dev 
> and that gentoo happens to host the project and be its primary testing 
> ground and user base shouldn't change that.
>
> Of course if upstream policy is thought by devs willing to do the work to 
> be irrational, they can of course fork the package.  There's certainly 
> precedent for that.  But someone's gotta be willing to do the work 
> necessary to create and maintain that fork, so...
>
+1