[gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Austin English]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 660 bytes --]

Hi there,

I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
#!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed packages.
That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that
latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to
be updated, and that's an insane number of bugs to file.

So, instead, I'm going to give developers to two weeks to update their
initscripts or ask me not to touch it. On/after 2016/05/18, I'll update
initscripts/copyrights, but will leave revbumping to maintainer's discretion.

Thanks,
Austin

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Patrick Lauer]

On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1],
... and once more I have to ask:

Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a packaging
conflict in *debian* where it really doesn't matter at all for us?

I mean, ok, it's your time, do what you want, but I'm still confused
about the benefits of this change ...

>  by starting on the maintainer-needed packages.
> That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that
> latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to
> be updated, and that's an insane number of bugs to file.
>
> So, instead, I'm going to give developers to two weeks to update their
> initscripts or ask me not to touch it. On/after 2016/05/18, I'll update
> initscripts/copyrights, but will leave revbumping to maintainer's discretion.
>
> Thanks,
> Austin
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Austin English]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

On 05/04/2016 01:02 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
>> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1],
> ... and once more I have to ask:
>
> Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a packaging
> conflict in *debian* where it really doesn't matter at all for us?
>
> I mean, ok, it's your time, do what you want, but I'm still confused
> about the benefits of this change ...

OpenRC isn't exclusive to Gentoo. Why should we use the generic #!bin/sh
when we usually intend #!/bin/bash? Because being explicit is nice
instead of relying on implementation details.

Additionally, you know, it helps the wider open source community. Most
would call that a beneficial thing. You're welcome to your own opinion.

Regardless, if you have a a technical objection rather than an objection
to following upstream's recommendations, I'm listening.
>>  by starting on the maintainer-needed packages.
>> That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that
>> latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to
>> be updated, and that's an insane number of bugs to file.
>>
>> So, instead, I'm going to give developers to two weeks to update their
>> initscripts or ask me not to touch it. On/after 2016/05/18, I'll update
>> initscripts/copyrights, but will leave revbumping to maintainer's discretion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Austin
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846
>>
>>
>



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2016, Austin English wrote:

> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed
> packages. That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but
> I'll deal with that latter). The trouble is that there are roughly
> 700 packages that need to be updated, and that's an insane number of
> bugs to file.

> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846

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.

Also, what problem are you trying to solve? My guess would be that
/sbin/runscript must be kept around indefinitely in any case, in order
not to risk breakage on users' systems.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Austin English]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]

On 05/04/2016 02:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
>> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
>> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed
>> packages. That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but
>> I'll deal with that latter). The trouble is that there are roughly
>> 700 packages that need to be updated, and that's an insane number of
>> bugs to file.
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846
> 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, what a user does outside of that is a separate problem (for the
init program, not gentoo.git).
 
> Also, what problem are you trying to solve? My guess would be that
> /sbin/runscript must be kept around indefinitely in any case, in order
> not to risk breakage on users' systems.
>
> Ulrich
Again, not my issue. I'm trying to prevent the problem from spreading
further. If only new scripts get openrc-run, the runscript shebang
should be rare in a year now, for example. But again, that's for OpenRC
to decide. That's not reason not to get away from the deprecated name now.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 538 bytes --]

>>>>> 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.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Sam Jorna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --]

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"

-- 
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG Key: D6180C26

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

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


-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Sam Jorna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1616 bytes --]

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.

-- 
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG Key: D6180C26

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2015 bytes --]

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.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Patrick Lauer]

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?

[gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Duncan]

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...

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Patrick Lauer]

On 05/05/2016 09:17 AM, 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.
... which wasn't a problem for the first decade. The first time a name
collision was noticed was when debian packaging was attempted.
>
> 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...
>
So you're saying that a Gentoo-specific change in Gentoo happens because
the Gentoo maintainer doesn't care about Gentoo? ;)

Somehow I still don't see a *problem* being solved, and the runscript
binary/symlink pretty much has to stay there indefinitely unless you
want to make life exciting for people that have their own or adapted
init scripts.

To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.


Y'all have too much free time ... ;)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[M. J. Everitt]

On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.
>
>
> Y'all have too much free time ... ;)
>
I'm inclined to say, that provided there *is* someone doing it .. let
them be. Whatever the motives.

We have enough problems with painting the bike shed not to stifle
activity and contribution ...

Just my 2c ... ;]

MJE

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Patrick Lauer]

On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
>> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
>> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.
>>
>>
>> Y'all have too much free time ... ;)
>>
> I'm inclined to say, that provided there *is* someone doing it .. let
> them be. Whatever the motives.
This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users
that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken.


How much is your time worth?
>
> We have enough problems with painting the bike shed not to stifle
> activity and contribution ...

I dislike repeating myself, but ... "Change is not Progress"
>
> Just my 2c ... ;]
>
> MJE
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1532 bytes --]

On 05/05/16 08:53, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users
> that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken.
>
To quote an old proverb .. "you can't make an omelette without breaking
eggs" .. if you wish me to explain, I'll do it privately ;)


I don't think anyone (gentoo-wide) is out to make users life difficult,
or make significant work for the precious few package maintainers there
are. There will always be a certain amount of 'change for change's sake'
and whilst there may not always be a direct benefit, there are often
desirable side-effects. I'm not saying this is necessarily a case in
point, though.

I hear the arguments that we are upholding upstream's progression, and I
think that remains one of Gentoo's overriding goals. Sure if its really
a problem for you, fork openrc, maintain it or leave it to bit-rot if
you really think that 'runscript' is the only way to start services.
We/I can't get inside the maintainers head (and wouldn't wish to .. mine
is spaghetti enough already, tyvm!) but rest assured I don't think this
is a debian/fedora/systemd/<insert-your-personal-distaste-here> issue,
and I think we should just let them get on with it, and be grateful we
have been warned, and this isn't an epic surprise that will generate a
whole stack of reverts down-the-line where someone hasn't done a
reasonable impact assessment of their change...

ok, that's $2 now .. I'll shut up .. I got Real Work to do too ...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer:
> On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
> >> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
> >> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Y'all have too much free time ... ;)
> > 
> > I'm inclined to say, that provided there *is* someone doing it .. let
> > them be. Whatever the motives.
> 
> This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users
> that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken.
> 

So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix with a 
single Rex command?

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=Xm9w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Patrick Lauer]

On 05/05/2016 08:59 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer:
> > On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> >> On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >>> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
> >>> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
> >>> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Y'all have too much free time ... ;)
> >>
> >> I'm inclined to say, that provided there *is* someone doing it .. let
> >> them be. Whatever the motives.
>
> > This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users
> > that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken.
>
>
> So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix
> with a
> single Rex command?
>
I like the naive assumption that I only have one central deployment :)

To be honest, I don't know, because I shouldn't have to care ... but
what's a few hours of changing stuff between friends, especially when it
doesn't add any features.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Andreas K. Huettel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 21:40:00 schrieb Patrick Lauer:

> > So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix
> > with a
> > single Rex command?
> 
> I like the naive assumption that I only have one central deployment :)
> 
> To be honest, I don't know, because I shouldn't have to care ... but
> what's a few hours of changing stuff between friends, especially when it
> doesn't add any features.

Well that's why even having an extra overlay is better than adding custom 
scripts outside portage... :)

- -- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=Q848
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Duncan]

Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 09:32:01 +0200 as excerpted:

> So you're saying that a Gentoo-specific change in Gentoo happens because
> the Gentoo maintainer doesn't care about Gentoo? ;)

I'm saying that big-picture, there's more than one distro, and once a 
particular package graduates beyond a single distro, as openrc has, 
there's likely to be some more or less disruptive changes.

Meanwhile, seems there was another package with a runscript executable 
that debian happens to package, proving my point about namespace 
collision.  Today that's a problem for debian; tomorrow it could well be 
a problem for a would-be gentoo packager (dev or user) of that same 
package... if some gentooer out there isn't /already/ having to deal with 
the problem.  So it's not just debian openrc is helping here, it's the 
entire floss community that may at some point be interested in software 
with that same name, including gentoo.

> Somehow I still don't see a *problem* being solved, and the runscript
> binary/symlink pretty much has to stay there indefinitely unless you
> want to make life exciting for people that have their own or adapted
> init scripts.

Many gentoo precedents define your "indefinitely" as "one year at 
minimum".  Beyond that, it's (gentoo) maintainer's preference, taking 
account of how much of the rest of the tree it still effects, getting 
someone to take care of the lagging packages if necessary, etc.  But 
while we don't /try/ to break stuff out of the tree, if it's out of tree 
and particularly if it's in some user's non-public/non-layman overlay or 
simply a script hacked up on their system, we prioritize accordingly, and 
yes, we recognize that sometimes that stuff breaks with such changes, but 
that's held to be a case of "if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces".

Despite all that, I expect it'll be more like two years' worth as 
deprecated but still there, simply for practicality reasons.  Meanwhile, 
once the deprecation warning goes in, a year or more is plenty of time to 
change things so they'll still work after the deprecation period, and 
like I said, while we recognize that some users may not upgrade in in 
over a year, that really has been held to be their problem and 
responsibility at that point, including if they entirely missed the 
deprecation warnings as a result of not upgrading in over a year.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2361 bytes --]

On 05/04/2016 04:12 PM, 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.
> 
> William
> 

This sounds like the most sane approach to me, in conjunction with a
repoman warning or error once OpenRC announces deprecation 'upstream'.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Duncan]

Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 04 May 2016 10:00:05 +0200 as excerpted:

>>>>>> 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.

While you are correct, the current problem isn't lack of low hanging 
fruit to fix in the files dir, as he said there's 700 packages on the 
list already, too many to file individual bugs for.

So while it is indeed worthwhile to keep in mind the init-scripts 
installed from SRC_URI...

There's seven hundred "miles of open road" to cross before we have to 
worry about that SRC_URI bridge, so maybe worry about that when we're 
within 50 or 100, or even a couple hundred, "miles", not 700. =:^]

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1613 bytes --]

On 04.05.2016 11:19, Duncan wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 04 May 2016 10:00:05 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
>>>>>>> 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.
> 
> While you are correct, the current problem isn't lack of low hanging 
> fruit to fix in the files dir, as he said there's 700 packages on the 
> list already, too many to file individual bugs for.
> 
> So while it is indeed worthwhile to keep in mind the init-scripts 
> installed from SRC_URI...
> 
> There's seven hundred "miles of open road" to cross before we have to 
> worry about that SRC_URI bridge, so maybe worry about that when we're 
> within 50 or 100, or even a couple hundred, "miles", not 700. =:^]
> 

Hi Austin,

to be honest, I'm not too happy with the fixes you applied.
Although it's just a tiny change, I'd rather have expected a revision
bump to the ebuilds and a revision bump to the init files themselves
than just a in-file rewrite.
Your fix changes the content of files that are installed to ones system.
Such a change usually requires a revbump.


Cheers,

Manuel



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 605 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1821 bytes --]

On 04.05.2016 14:54, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> On 04.05.2016 11:19, Duncan wrote:
>> Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 04 May 2016 10:00:05 +0200 as excerpted:
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> While you are correct, the current problem isn't lack of low hanging 
>> fruit to fix in the files dir, as he said there's 700 packages on the 
>> list already, too many to file individual bugs for.
>>
>> So while it is indeed worthwhile to keep in mind the init-scripts 
>> installed from SRC_URI...
>>
>> There's seven hundred "miles of open road" to cross before we have to 
>> worry about that SRC_URI bridge, so maybe worry about that when we're 
>> within 50 or 100, or even a couple hundred, "miles", not 700. =:^]
>>
> 
> Hi Austin,
> 
> to be honest, I'm not too happy with the fixes you applied.
> Although it's just a tiny change, I'd rather have expected a revision
> bump to the ebuilds and a revision bump to the init files themselves
> than just a in-file rewrite.
> Your fix changes the content of files that are installed to ones system.
> Such a change usually requires a revbump.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Manuel
> 
> 
Nevermind, I didn't see the follow-up commit in which you removed the
old revision.

Cheers,

Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 605 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

[Austin English]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1068 bytes --]

On 05/03/2016 11:27 PM, Austin English wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed packages.
> That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that
> latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to
> be updated, and that's an insane number of bugs to file.
>
> So, instead, I'm going to give developers to two weeks to update their
> initscripts or ask me not to touch it. On/after 2016/05/18, I'll update
> initscripts/copyrights, but will leave revbumping to maintainer's discretion.
>
> Thanks,
> Austin
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846

I've updated everything in the tree to use #!/sbin/openrc-run. The
/sbin/runscript symlink still remains for now, don't worry. I plan to
add checks in repoman/qa checks in the near future to prevent the
deprecated shebang from creeping back in.

Maintainers, please revbump your packages at your discretion.

Thanks!
Austin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]