[gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 932 bytes --]

All,

the reason for this email is
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 and the bugs that
currently depend on it. I'm sure there will be more of those.

The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
/lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.

Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
use its init scripts or not.

As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
whether or not they are using openrc's init system.

I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
greatly appreciated.

William

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
> 
> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
> since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
> all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
> use its init scripts or not.
> 
> As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
> minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
> have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
> whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
> 
> I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
> greatly appreciated.

As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
systemd future.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:07:12PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> > /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
> > 
> > Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
> > replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
> > since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
> > all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
> > use its init scripts or not.
> > 
> > As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
> > minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
> > have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
> > whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
> > greatly appreciated.
> 
> As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
> these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
> separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
> systemd future.

I'm not advocating killing openrc; I think that the sysvinit/openrc
system we have is going to be our default init system for some time

It isn't init scripts that I'm worried about. The problem is
that scripts other than init scripts are using the code in
/etc/init.d/functions.sh, so some how that code, or something similar to
it needs to be available on systems so that someone, like yourself, who
is not using openrc, can run "emerge --unmerge sysvinit openrc" and have
a working system. Right now, things like revdep-rebuild and eix will
break if you remove openrc.

For the short term I can see it as a subset of openrc, but ultimately I
think if you aren't using openrc's init system it should not be required
on your system.

Any other thoughts?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1440 bytes --]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:10:42 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> the reason for this email is
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 and the bugs that
> currently depend on it. I'm sure there will be more of those.
> 
> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
> 
> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
> since things other than init scripts are
> using /etc/init.d/functions.sh, all gentoo users are forced to have
> openrc on their systems whether they use its init scripts or not.
> 
> As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
> minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
> have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
> whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
> 
> I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would
> be greatly appreciated.

Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.

Say, if OpenRC decided to switch into some kind of internal output
flow, einfo and friends would stop working for all those external
scripts.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 566 bytes --]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.

except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having existed 
since the beginning of Gentoo

> Say, if OpenRC decided to switch into some kind of internal output
> flow, einfo and friends would stop working for all those external
> scripts.

this idea is pure ridiculousness
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
>> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
>> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
>
> except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having existed
> since the beginning of Gentoo
>

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
> >> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
> >> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
> > 
> > except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having
> > existed since the beginning of Gentoo
> 
> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

/etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was long ago 
decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts external to baselayout 
(as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt going anywhere, and painting it as 
something in flux at this point is disingenuous.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
>> >> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
>> >> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
>> >
>> > except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having
>> > existed since the beginning of Gentoo
>>
>> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
>
> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was long ago
> decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts external to baselayout
> (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt going anywhere, and painting it as
> something in flux at this point is disingenuous.
>

So... Gentoo's base system can never change, and hence new init
systems are not welcome. Okay. Got it.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 453 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt
> going anywhere, and painting it as something in flux at this point is
> disingenuous.

Is it documented and specified? If not, can it be?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:12, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
>>> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
>>> >> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
>>> >> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
>>> >
>>> > except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having
>>> > existed since the beginning of Gentoo
>>>
>>> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
>>
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was long ago
>> decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts external to baselayout
>> (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt going anywhere, and painting it as
>> something in flux at this point is disingenuous.
>
> So... Gentoo's base system can never change, and hence new init
> systems are not welcome. Okay. Got it.

you really should refrain from inserting words into other people's
mouths.  at no point did i ever make this statement.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
>> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
>> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt
>> going anywhere, and painting it as something in flux at this point is
>> disingenuous.
>
> Is it documented and specified? If not, can it be?

the file path ?  or the API that it provides ?
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
> >> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
> >> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt
> >> going anywhere, and painting it as something in flux at this point
> >> is disingenuous.
> >
> > Is it documented and specified? If not, can it be?
> 
> the file path ?  or the API that it provides ?

Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

2011/6/28 Olivier Crête:
> As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
> these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
> separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
> systemd future.

systemd is limited (acknowledged by its author and encoded in its
basic design) in what it supports.  the set of systems that openrc
supports is significantly larger and simpler (by design).  i really
cant see it being replaced by systemd.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Matt Turner]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
>>> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
>>> >> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
>>> >> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
>>> >
>>> > except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having
>>> > existed since the beginning of Gentoo
>>>
>>> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
>>
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was long ago
>> decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts external to baselayout
>> (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt going anywhere, and painting it as
>> something in flux at this point is disingenuous.
>
> So... Gentoo's base system can never change, and hence new init
> systems are not welcome. Okay. Got it.

What is this I don't even...

Let's try this again:

Michał said "Sourcing random internal scripts of a random package is
just broken by concept."

Mike then said "except it hasnt been random and has clearly been
defined by having existed since the beginning of Gentoo" and then
further explained what he meant.

So... wtf?

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
>> >> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
>> >> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt
>> >> going anywhere, and painting it as something in flux at this point
>> >> is disingenuous.
>> >
>> > Is it documented and specified? If not, can it be?
>>
>> the file path ?  or the API that it provides ?
>
> Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.

the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS.  it has had other
functions come and go over the years, but i think things have settled
on just the output helpers.  was there anything other than the output
helpers you were interested in ?

i'm not sure where this could be documented other than openrc itself.
but if that appeases people, then that should be trivial to take care
of.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

probably not worth getting into
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 859 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
> 
> the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
> grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS.  it has had other
> functions come and go over the years, but i think things have settled
> on just the output helpers.  was there anything other than the output
> helpers you were interested in ?

I seem to recall duplicating the colours stuff for Eselect too. But the
variable names seem to be different there, and the 'portageq' call
screws around with things, so perhaps by now things have diverged to the
extent that it's easier to just keep similar but different code around.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
>> > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
>>
>> the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
>> grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS.  it has had other
>> functions come and go over the years, but i think things have settled
>> on just the output helpers.  was there anything other than the output
>> helpers you were interested in ?
>
> I seem to recall duplicating the colours stuff for Eselect too. But the
> variable names seem to be different there, and the 'portageq' call
> screws around with things, so perhaps by now things have diverged to the
> extent that it's easier to just keep similar but different code around.

the env var names should be the same as they've always been, but this
wasnt generally something i focused on.  i dont think PMS does either.
 although in looking and some scripts which use it, they sometimes
leverage the env vars directly, so i guess encoding it should be
simple enough.  just documenting what has always been.

openrc's functions.sh doesnt call portageq, so i'm not sure what
you're referring to there.

the func names and behavior between openrc shouldnt have diverged from
what portage/PMS does.  if it has, probably should open a bug for it.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:

>>> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and
>>> >> was long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for
>>> >> scripts external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in
>>> >> /sbin/).

> the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
> grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS. it has had other
> functions come and go over the years, but i think things have
> settled on just the output helpers. was there anything other than
> the output helpers you were interested in ?

eselect also uses other functions from it, like rc_runlevel().

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Patrick Lauer]

On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
>> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
>>
>> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
>> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
>> since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
>> all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
>> use its init scripts or not.
>>
>> As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
>> minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
>> have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
>> whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
>>
>> I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
>> greatly appreciated.
> 
> As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
> these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
> separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
> systemd future.
> 
We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
other things.

But as OpenRC has some rare features ("being able to start and stop
stuff" and "being reasonably fast" among them) and there's no
replacement at the moment I see no reason to add a convoluted mess of
insanity just to feel good.

-- 
Patrick Lauer         http://service.gentooexperimental.org

Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist
Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1006 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:38:45 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
> > >> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
> > >> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt
> > >> going anywhere, and painting it as something in flux at this
> > >> point is disingenuous.
> > >
> > > Is it documented and specified? If not, can it be?
> > 
> > the file path ?  or the API that it provides ?
> 
> Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.

I'm not sure if it is a good idea to source a script mangling PATH
there.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 06/29/2011 05:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
>>> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
>>>
>>> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
>>> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
>>> since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
>>> all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
>>> use its init scripts or not.
>>>
>>> As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
>>> minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
>>> have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
>>> whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
>>> greatly appreciated.
>> As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
>> these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
>> separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
>> systemd future.
>>
> We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
> other things.
>
> But as OpenRC has some rare features ("being able to start and stop
> stuff" and "being reasonably fast" among them) and there's no
> replacement at the moment I see no reason to add a convoluted mess of
> insanity just to feel good.
>
Hi Patrick,

I started the madness :)  But it wasn't because I didn't prefer openrc
over all other init systems, but because I wanted to create minimal
chroot environments without any init system whatsoever.  In addition to
opening up the choice for our users, this also avoids ugly DEPENDs in
our ebuilds, like eix or gentoolkit which, strictly speaking, should
depend on openrc to provide functions.sh and don't currently.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID  : D0455535

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
> other things.

I'd say that "welcome" is a better word than "tolerate" - after all,
Gentoo is about choice.  :)

Still, I do agree that we should avoid disruptive changes to existing
system packages for the sake of packages that are still fairly
experimental on Gentoo.  The most elegant solution is probably to
split up openrc, but the original suggestion was to just make an
"openrc-lite" of some sort and that seems like a much safer interim
solution until systemd has some kind of critical mass around it.  By
then there might be a few other experimental init systems floating
around and any serious changes might be more informed than anything we
do now.

The advantages and disadvantages of any particular init system,
desktop environment, or text-editor/OS-combo aren't terribly relevant
to this issue.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Peter Volkov]

В Срд, 29/06/2011 в 07:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: 
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> > > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
> > 
> > the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
> > grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS.  it has had other
> > functions come and go over the years, but i think things have settled
> > on just the output helpers.  was there anything other than the output
> > helpers you were interested in ?
> 
> I seem to recall duplicating the colours stuff for Eselect too. But the
> variable names seem to be different there, and the 'portageq' call
> screws around with things, so perhaps by now things have diverged to the
> extent that it's easier to just keep similar but different code around.

Having single location for this functions allows system wide
customization of colors...

Personally I'd like to have this functions in separate package. What if
we'll provide two tarballs from the single openrc sources, e.g.
efunctions.tar.bz2 and openrc.tar.bz2, and correspodingly two packages?
openrc tarbal will have code for efunctions included but its
installation will be disabled in ebuild. This way we'll have full openrc
sources for those who need it and in Gentoo we'll have separate package
with efunctions for other packages to depend on.

--
Peter. 

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2196 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:49:13PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Срд, 29/06/2011 в 07:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: 
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> > > > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
> > > 
> > > the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
> > > grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS.  it has had other
> > > functions come and go over the years, but i think things have settled
> > > on just the output helpers.  was there anything other than the output
> > > helpers you were interested in ?
> > 
> > I seem to recall duplicating the colours stuff for Eselect too. But the
> > variable names seem to be different there, and the 'portageq' call
> > screws around with things, so perhaps by now things have diverged to the
> > extent that it's easier to just keep similar but different code around.
> 
> Having single location for this functions allows system wide
> customization of colors...
> 
> Personally I'd like to have this functions in separate package. What if
> we'll provide two tarballs from the single openrc sources, e.g.
> efunctions.tar.bz2 and openrc.tar.bz2, and correspodingly two packages?
> openrc tarbal will have code for efunctions included but its
> installation will be disabled in ebuild. This way we'll have full openrc
> sources for those who need it and in Gentoo we'll have separate package
> with efunctions for other packages to depend on.

That is similar to what I'm looking at doing with openrc.  What I'm
thinking if we go that route is that openrc will have a use flag,
"core", or something similar which will install enough of openrc to make
those functions available. I am opposed to two separate packages; I
think that is a lot more work than necessary.

The disadvantage is that functions.sh is not a simple script; most of
the functions are actually part of /sbin/rc which is a multi call binary,
so I'll need to make sure the unnecessary functionality is disabled in
the binary as well.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2122 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:07:52AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
> > >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
> > >> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
> > >> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
> > > 
> > > except it hasnt been random and has clearly been defined by having
> > > existed since the beginning of Gentoo
> > 
> > I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
> 
> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was long ago 
> decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts external to baselayout 
> (as opposed to a path in /sbin/).  it isnt going anywhere, and painting it as 
> something in flux at this point is disingenuous.

I never said that /etc/init.d/functions.sh should go anywhere.

I guess I'm just questioning why core functionality for our distribution
is part of an optional package. Yes, OpenRC is our default init system,
but it is optional.

If I put a separate package in portage, say called gentoo-core that has
only the core functions, openrc and gentoo-core would have to block each
other and  packages that need the core functionality would have to
depend on || ( sys-apps/openrc sys-apps/gentoo-core ).

If I use a use flag for openrc (I'm thinking about core or minimal) to
build only the necessary parts of it, that leaves these packages
depending on sys-apps/openrc and the user controling the use flag.

The third option is for openrc to not install the
 symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code is actually at
 /lib/rc/functions.sh or /libexec/rc/functions.sh on the bsds. If I do
 that in openrc, that would mean that baselayout or another package
 would have to provide either a symbolic link in
 /etc/init.d/functions.sh or a script there that provided the functions
 if openrc was not available.

 Thoughts?

 William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2284 bytes --]

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> >> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
> >>
> >> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
> >> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
> >> since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
> >> all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
> >> use its init scripts or not.
> >>
> >> As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
> >> minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
> >> have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
> >> whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
> >>
> >> I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
> >> greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
> > these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
> > separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
> > systemd future.
> > 
> We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
> other things.
> 
> But as OpenRC has some rare features ("being able to start and stop
> stuff" and "being reasonably fast" among them) and there's no
> replacement at the moment I see no reason to add a convoluted mess of
> insanity just to feel good.

I think you're missing how systemd is above and beyond OpenRC (and all
other init systems). It has stuff like using cgroups to guarantee that
all the processes associated with a service have stopped (openrc doesn't
do that), it provides very fast boot (openrc doesn't do that), it can
activate services on demand (openrc doesn't do that), etc..

And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
think, we won't have a choice but to switch to systemd as many core
components will start depending on it.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Patrick Lauer]

On 06/29/11 17:14, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>>>> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
>>>> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
>>>>
>>>> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
>>>> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scripts at all. However,
>>>> since things other than init scripts are using /etc/init.d/functions.sh,
>>>> all gentoo users are forced to have openrc on their systems whether they
>>>> use its init scripts or not.
>>>>
>>>> As you can see in the bug, I am working on creating a
>>>> minimalist version of openrc that can be installed to allow users to
>>>> have access to the functions that are in functions.sh regardless of
>>>> whether or not they are using openrc's init system.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, so any input would be
>>>> greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
>>> these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
>>> separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
>>> systemd future.
>>>
>> We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
>> other things.
>>
>> But as OpenRC has some rare features ("being able to start and stop
>> stuff" and "being reasonably fast" among them) and there's no
>> replacement at the moment I see no reason to add a convoluted mess of
>> insanity just to feel good.
> 
> I think you're missing how systemd is above and beyond OpenRC (and all
> other init systems). It has stuff like using cgroups to guarantee that
> all the processes associated with a service have stopped (openrc doesn't
> do that),
I've started playing around with it. Pretty tiny feature, I expect it to
end up as <200 lines of shell. Once I finish that openrc will support it
too, but without the Lennartizing that makes people so very joyful happy.


> it provides very fast boot (openrc doesn't do that),
Hmm, the comparisons I've seen are very mixed, with the performance
difference between 0 and 50% in favour of OpenRC. I haven't seen
anything catch OpenRC yet, but at least there's now an equivalent for
rc-status ...

> it can
> activate services on demand (openrc doesn't do that), etc..

What's the usecase for that? Sounds more like an antifeature (either
it's started or not, determinism rocks), and then there's things like
xinetd that tend to get deprecated and rediscovered every 5 years ...

What systemd can't do is run more than one command for a service, so ...
hmm ... that's a rather funny riddle. And it hides things behind an
opaque layer, so as soon as you need to edit internals (which I tend to
do about 2-3 times a year with OpenRC) you're going to have to stab
around in bad C instead of changing a simple shell script.

But - having seen the horrors that others do in shell I *understand* why
some people still think that shell-free startup is a good idea. It's
not. Leg-free humans are a good way to avoid broken toes ...

> And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
> managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
> think, we won't have a choice but to switch to systemd as many core
> components will start depending on it.
> 
You underestimate the amount of "positive feelings" that Lennart has
managed to create. Also for almost everyone else it adds functionality,
but we've had that for a long time. I mean, Upstart is still unable to
reliably start, stop or restart services. So migrating to systemd is
good. OpenRC has been doing that since the beginning, so we don't gain
anything. We just lose our flexible human-readable init scripts for no
gain at all - hey, why doesn't that sound like a bonus to me?

And you can bet that if anyone is so, how to say this politely, retarded
to think that depending on systemd is a good idea will discover that
people will patch around the stupid very fast.

Plus there's some of us that will never be able to use systemd because
it has artificial limitations in the kernels it supports. That's not a
good idea.

As much as I like your optimism, it's pretty much misguided and trying
to make my life more difficult. I hope you don't mind if I try to stop
you from creating work for me :)

-- 
Patrick Lauer         http://service.gentooexperimental.org

Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist
Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Jeremy Olexa]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:31:43 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/29/11 17:14, Olivier Crête wrote:

Stop polluting the thread with $init vs $init2, please.
-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:14:22 -0400
Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
> managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
> think, we won't have a choice but to switch to systemd as many core
> components will start depending on it.

Ah, are we talking about the "GNOME Operating System" here? If so, I'd
rather see Gentoo drop Gnome than force everyone to switch to using
DistributionKit...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> The third option is for openrc to not install the
>  symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code is actually at
>  /lib/rc/functions.sh or /libexec/rc/functions.sh on the bsds. If I do
>  that in openrc, that would mean that baselayout or another package
>  would have to provide either a symbolic link in
>  /etc/init.d/functions.sh or a script there that provided the functions
>  if openrc was not available.

this sounds bad on multiple levels
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:38, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and
>>>> >> was long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for
>>>> >> scripts external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in
>>>> >> /sbin/).
>>
>> the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
>> grown to love, and are now enshrined in PMS. it has had other
>> functions come and go over the years, but i think things have
>> settled on just the output helpers. was there anything other than
>> the output helpers you were interested in ?
>
> eselect also uses other functions from it, like rc_runlevel().

yes, but in this case, eselect is closely bound to what version
(baselayout-1 vs openrc vs ...) is installed so that it can manage the
init.d scripts and runlevels.  as soon as the init code changes
drastically, then the eselect module does as well.  i think this is a
different beast than what most every other external script is using it
for.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'm not sure if it is a good idea to source a script mangling PATH
> there.

the mangling makes sure the system paths are present and come first.
it doesnt remove any elements.

it probably could be redone to only prepend elements, but i'm not sure
the resulting behavior would be quite right when talking about / vs
/usr vs /usr/local.  also, the preference seen here is the same as
provided by /etc/profile.

to be sure, PATH handling in the script is ancillary to the general
topic at hand.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1311 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:56:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > The third option is for openrc to not install the
> >  symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code is actually at
> >  /lib/rc/functions.sh or /libexec/rc/functions.sh on the bsds. If I do
> >  that in openrc, that would mean that baselayout or another package
> >  would have to provide either a symbolic link in
> >  /etc/init.d/functions.sh or a script there that provided the functions
> >  if openrc was not available.
> 
> this sounds bad on multiple levels

Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so that the
init scripts are optional and whether or not they are installed is
controlled by a use flag which I will default to on in IUSE. Most people
would leave this flag alone, but if you want to use something like
systemd and do not want the init scripts or the /etc/runlevels directory
on your system, you would just re-emerge
openrc with this flag disabled.

For now this flag will just control init scripts installation, but I
will also look into taking it further and not installing other parts of
openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which are only used if you are
working on init scripts.

Thoughts?

William

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:14:22 -0400
> Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
>> managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
>> think, we won't have a choice but to switch to systemd as many core
>> components will start depending on it.
>
> Ah, are we talking about the "GNOME Operating System" here? If so, I'd
> rather see Gentoo drop Gnome than force everyone to switch to using
> DistributionKit...
>

Yes, I agree. We should be like Slackware which dropped GNOME in 2005.
What an excellent decision they made and it helped them retain so many
users too...

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 16:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:14:22 -0400
> Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
> > managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
> > think, we won't have a choice but to switch to systemd as many core
> > components will start depending on it.
> 
> Ah, are we talking about the "GNOME Operating System" here? If so, I'd
> rather see Gentoo drop Gnome than force everyone to switch to using
> DistributionKit...

When I became a Gentoo developer, 8 years ago, Gentoo had the most
advanced init system of any distribution. It still works exactly the
same, openrc being just a mostly pointless effort to re-do the same
thing in C. systemd is where the innovation is today and we, Gentoo,
should get on board or be left behind. And GNOME is indeed in the
driving seat for much of the innovation in system components these days,
because as Gnome developers, we fix the system components instead of
working around their bugs.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Rich Freeman]

2011/6/29 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>:
> systemd is where the innovation is today and we, Gentoo,
> should get on board or be left behind.

Certainly agree that systemd is innovative.

I think this whole thing is becoming a bit moot.  The openrc
maintainer is already planning to add use flags to allow for clean
comingling of the two init systems.  Why don't we let everybody play
around with and generally improve both, and then let the "market" sort
it out as it were?

I'd rather read planet.g.o articles about neat things being done with
either systemd or openrc than a lot of bickering about which one is
better on a mailing list.  Give the users a choice, and then the
distro can go with whatever proves to be stronger.  As has long been a
tradition in Gentoo we can also help to improve both upstream
experiences while we're at it.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:56:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > The third option is for openrc to not install the
> > >  symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code is
> > > actually at /lib/rc/functions.sh or /libexec/rc/functions.sh on
> > > the bsds. If I do that in openrc, that would mean that baselayout
> > > or another package would have to provide either a symbolic link in
> > >  /etc/init.d/functions.sh or a script there that provided the
> > > functions if openrc was not available.
> > 
> > this sounds bad on multiple levels
> 
> Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so that the
> init scripts are optional and whether or not they are installed is
> controlled by a use flag which I will default to on in IUSE. Most
> people would leave this flag alone, but if you want to use something
> like systemd and do not want the init scripts or the /etc/runlevels
> directory on your system, you would just re-emerge
> openrc with this flag disabled.
> 
> For now this flag will just control init scripts installation, but I
> will also look into taking it further and not installing other parts
> of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which are only used if
> you are working on init scripts.
> 
> Thoughts?

Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with INSTALL_MASK?
USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the benefit of one file.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1124 bytes --]

On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so that the
> > init scripts are optional and whether or not they are installed is
> > controlled by a use flag which I will default to on in IUSE. Most
> > people would leave this flag alone, but if you want to use something
> > like systemd and do not want the init scripts or the /etc/runlevels
> > directory on your system, you would just re-emerge
> > openrc with this flag disabled.
> > 
> > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation, but I
> > will also look into taking it further and not installing other parts
> > of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which are only used if
> > you are working on init scripts.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with INSTALL_MASK?
> USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the benefit of one file.

so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup INSTALL_MASK and 
we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Paul de Vrieze]

On 30 June 2011 04:47, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so that the
> > > init scripts are optional and whether or not they are installed is
> > > controlled by a use flag which I will default to on in IUSE. Most
> > > people would leave this flag alone, but if you want to use something
> > > like systemd and do not want the init scripts or the /etc/runlevels
> > > directory on your system, you would just re-emerge
> > > openrc with this flag disabled.
> > >
> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation, but I
> > > will also look into taking it further and not installing other parts
> > > of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which are only used if
> > > you are working on init scripts.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with INSTALL_MASK?
> > USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the benefit of one file.
>
> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup INSTALL_MASK and
> we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
> -mike

Why can't we just split up functions.sh into "/lib/output.sh"
containing the init script independent (but often gentoo specific)
output stuff, and have functions.sh source this. Output.sh would be
provided by a separate package (why not baselayout) and the packages
using those would rewrite their stuff to use the right location.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: paul.devrieze@gmail.com
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Why can't we just split up functions.sh into "/lib/output.sh"

we're not changing the file name

> containing the init script independent (but often gentoo specific)
> output stuff, and have functions.sh source this. Output.sh would be
> provided by a separate package (why not baselayout) and the packages
> using those would rewrite their stuff to use the right location.

we're not splitting the source trees.  the reasons have already been
detailed in the bug open on the topic.
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Rich Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

On Jun 30, 2011 11:06 AM, "Mike Frysinger" <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> we're not splitting the source trees.  the reasons have already been
> detailed in the bug open on the topic.
> -mike
>

I think we're generally aiming for perfection when we should be pragmatic.
The proposed solution isn't ideal, but is workable and I think that further
improvement should wait until systemd/etc is mainstream (if ever).

There is a similar tendency in the tags thread to aim for the revolutionary
and elegant solution for everything when we basically just need some search
keywords to get started...

Rich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 744 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

Hi Paul and everyone,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04:04AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Why can't we just split up functions.sh into "/lib/output.sh"
> 
> we're not changing the file name

I just made a case on the bug for having a separate package called
gentoo-base-functions which contains a script called
/etc/init.d/functions.sh which would be smart enough to use openrc if it
is available and provide the functions if it is not [1]. Please take a
look and comment.

William

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C31


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1364 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
> > > that the init scripts are optional and whether or not they are
> > > installed is controlled by a use flag which I will default to on
> > > in IUSE. Most people would leave this flag alone, but if you want
> > > to use something like systemd and do not want the init scripts or
> > > the /etc/runlevels directory on your system, you would just
> > > re-emerge openrc with this flag disabled.
> > > 
> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation,
> > > but I will also look into taking it further and not installing
> > > other parts of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which are
> > > only used if you are working on init scripts.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with INSTALL_MASK?
> > USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the benefit of one file.
> 
> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup
> INSTALL_MASK and we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?

Have you even heard the word called 'context'? It might be too short
for your taste.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
>> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
>> > > that the init scripts are optional and whether or not they are
>> > > installed is controlled by a use flag which I will default to on
>> > > in IUSE. Most people would leave this flag alone, but if you want
>> > > to use something like systemd and do not want the init scripts or
>> > > the /etc/runlevels directory on your system, you would just
>> > > re-emerge openrc with this flag disabled.
>> > >
>> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation,
>> > > but I will also look into taking it further and not installing
>> > > other parts of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which are
>> > > only used if you are working on init scripts.
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with INSTALL_MASK?
>> > USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the benefit of one file.
>>
>> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup
>> INSTALL_MASK and we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
>
> Have you even heard the word called 'context'? It might be too short
> for your taste.

perhaps if you focused less on being snarky and more on the thread
content, you'd realize that the context here is "providing
/etc/init.d/functions.sh support for non-openrc users".  that was the
point of William's e-mail that is at the start of this current
"context".
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2009 bytes --]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> >> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
> >> > > that the init scripts are optional and whether or not they are
> >> > > installed is controlled by a use flag which I will default to
> >> > > on in IUSE. Most people would leave this flag alone, but if
> >> > > you want to use something like systemd and do not want the
> >> > > init scripts or the /etc/runlevels directory on your system,
> >> > > you would just re-emerge openrc with this flag disabled.
> >> > >
> >> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation,
> >> > > but I will also look into taking it further and not installing
> >> > > other parts of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which
> >> > > are only used if you are working on init scripts.
> >> >
> >> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with
> >> > INSTALL_MASK? USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the
> >> > benefit of one file.
> >>
> >> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup
> >> INSTALL_MASK and we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
> >
> > Have you even heard the word called 'context'? It might be too short
> > for your taste.
> 
> perhaps if you focused less on being snarky and more on the thread
> content, you'd realize that the context here is "providing
> /etc/init.d/functions.sh support for non-openrc users".  that was the
> point of William's e-mail that is at the start of this current
> "context".

And if you focused more on reading what others write, you'd realize
that the whole citation here mentions only installing init.d scripts
and /etc/runlevels?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3188 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:30:51PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:14 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> > >> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > >> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
> > >> > > that the init scripts are optional and whether or not they are
> > >> > > installed is controlled by a use flag which I will default to
> > >> > > on in IUSE. Most people would leave this flag alone, but if
> > >> > > you want to use something like systemd and do not want the
> > >> > > init scripts or the /etc/runlevels directory on your system,
> > >> > > you would just re-emerge openrc with this flag disabled.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation,
> > >> > > but I will also look into taking it further and not installing
> > >> > > other parts of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which
> > >> > > are only used if you are working on init scripts.
> > >> >
> > >> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with
> > >> > INSTALL_MASK? USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the
> > >> > benefit of one file.
> > >>
> > >> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup
> > >> INSTALL_MASK and we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
> > >
> > > Have you even heard the word called 'context'? It might be too short
> > > for your taste.
> > 
> > perhaps if you focused less on being snarky and more on the thread
> > content, you'd realize that the context here is "providing
> > /etc/init.d/functions.sh support for non-openrc users".  that was the
> > point of William's e-mail that is at the start of this current
> > "context".
> 
> And if you focused more on reading what others write, you'd realize
> that the whole citation here mentions only installing init.d scripts
> and /etc/runlevels?

We are trying to  hash out a way to make /etc/init.d/functions.sh
available to all users, regardless of the init system they are using.

The issue is that right now /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a symbolic link
owned by OpenRC which points to /lib/rc/sh/functions.sh. Also,
/lib/rc/sh/functions.sh in openrc really isn't much of a script, most of the e*
functions are part of the /sbin/rc binary which is a multi call binary.

We have some gentoo base functions which should be available
on all gentoo systems built into the OpenRC init system. This was fine
in the day when OpenRC was the only init system we used, but now it
isn't fine because it is requiring everyone to have OpenRC and sysvinit
installed even if they do not want to use them.

I do not want to deprecate *any* gentoo base functions. I just want to
make them all available in a way that does not force a dependency on
OpenRC and sysvinit.

The discussion on the bug has now evolved to having a separate package,
gentoo-base-functions, that provides these base functions.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:30, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:14 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
>> >> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
>> >> > > that the init scripts are optional and whether or not they are
>> >> > > installed is controlled by a use flag which I will default to
>> >> > > on in IUSE. Most people would leave this flag alone, but if
>> >> > > you want to use something like systemd and do not want the
>> >> > > init scripts or the /etc/runlevels directory on your system,
>> >> > > you would just re-emerge openrc with this flag disabled.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation,
>> >> > > but I will also look into taking it further and not installing
>> >> > > other parts of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which
>> >> > > are only used if you are working on init scripts.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with
>> >> > INSTALL_MASK? USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the
>> >> > benefit of one file.
>> >>
>> >> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup
>> >> INSTALL_MASK and we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
>> >
>> > Have you even heard the word called 'context'? It might be too short
>> > for your taste.
>>
>> perhaps if you focused less on being snarky and more on the thread
>> content, you'd realize that the context here is "providing
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh support for non-openrc users".  that was the
>> point of William's e-mail that is at the start of this current
>> "context".
>
> And if you focused more on reading what others write, you'd realize
> that the whole citation here mentions only installing init.d scripts
> and /etc/runlevels?

umm, no.  that's actually the opposite of what William said.  the
ultimate direction is exactly as i described, and William is hashing
out different ways to get there.

so yes, focus less on snarky and more on contributing something useful.
-mike