[gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Сергей]

There is a bug (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504116).
Though it had been reported long time ago, many bugs, which this bug
depends on, are not even confirmed (see my comment:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504116#c3). There is also no
response to my comment, seems like all the activity about this bug has
stopped. Is it so?

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Сергей <protserovsd@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a bug (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504116).
> Though it had been reported long time ago, many bugs, which this bug
> depends on, are not even confirmed (see my comment:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504116#c3). There is also no
> response to my comment, seems like all the activity about this bug has
> stopped. Is it so?

It hasn't stopped, is just that the devs don't exactly know how to
continue. In particular, with glibc and all of the toolchain packages,
there is a lot of historical cruft in the ebuilds and associated
eclasses. The devs are discussing how to move on forward with this;
the issue of /etc/init.d/functions.sh is secondary or even tertiary to
this. Check [1] for an example thread of the kind of discussion
happening.

I've been using my own functions.sh file for years. At its core, is
basically a cosmetic issue; functions.sh never provided nothing more
than a few shell functions to print pretty messages on the console.

Regards.

[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/93994/
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Сергей]

Thank you for your answer.
Actually, I do not understand the problems they are trying to solve
there (I am not a developer, just a user), but I believe they are more
important than "functions.sh" problem.
But I think it is possible to make "gentoo-functions" ebuild also copy
"functions.sh" to "/etc/init.d/" as a temporary workaround. I use
systemd (OpenRC and sysvinit removed, "gentoo-functions" installed
instead to provide "functions.sh") and I see no problem in creating
symlink from "/lib/gentoo/functions.sh" to "/etc/init.d/functions.sh".
But as it is an important action if you switch from OpenRC to Systemd,
I think it would be better to make it done by default, for example,
make "gentoo-functions" provide "/etc/init.d/functions.sh" as a
symlink from "/lib/gentoo/functions.sh", remove "functions.sh" from
OpenRC and make OpenRC depend on "gentoo-functions".
P.S. It would be also great if OpenRC was removed from "system" set,
instead "virtual/service-manager" should be placed there, as
"service-manager" depends on either OpenRC or Systemd.
Best regards.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Сергей <protserovsd@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I think it is possible to make "gentoo-functions" ebuild also copy
> "functions.sh" to "/etc/init.d/" as a temporary workaround.

This has been discussed with the maintainer of gentoo-functions; he
prefers to take the long (and possibly safer) way and make everybody
update their code with the new path.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Сергей]

I see. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo-functions/pull/2 It is my pull request.
Seems like these packages' maintainers are busy solving other problems now.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Сергей <protserovsd@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo-functions/pull/2 It is my pull request.
> Seems like these packages' maintainers are busy solving other problems now.
>

If this really gets in somebody's way they will just post a notice in
the affected packages that on a given date they'll just patch
everything to use the new path.  That is how half the changes around
here get made.  If there is controversy somebody can always escalate
it.

Is this really the rate-limiting step to being able to run without
openrc installed?

--
Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Сергей]

If a user doesn't have OpenRC installed, then /etc/init.d/functions.sh
is not provided, so some programs from bug 504116 do not work: for
example, locale-gen, gcc-config. This problem can be fixed in a solved
easily: user just needs to install gentoo-functions (if not installed
yet) and ln -s /lib/gentoo/functions.sh /etc/init.d/functions.sh. As I
think, until all the programs are changed to use
/lib/gentoo/functions.sh, /etc/init.d/functions.sh should also exist
in any system, because now it is not a matter of user's preference,
but a guarantee of working system.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Сергей]

Today two bugs from 504116's dependencies were resolved and two other
bugs were removed from 504116's dependencies list. Thanks to
maintainers who decided to solve the problem!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:15:48PM +0300, Сергей wrote:
> Today two bugs from 504116's dependencies were resolved and two other
> bugs were removed from 504116's dependencies list. Thanks to
> maintainers who decided to solve the problem!

The bugs being resolved is good, but I'm concerned about the bugs that
were *removed* from the dependencies list.

Why were they removed rather than being resolved?

Thanks,

William

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Сергей]

They were removed with the following comment:
"Removing bugs for maintainer-use scripts. We need not to care about those."

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:15:48PM +0300, Сергей wrote:
>> Today two bugs from 504116's dependencies were resolved and two other
>> bugs were removed from 504116's dependencies list. Thanks to
>> maintainers who decided to solve the problem!
>
> The bugs being resolved is good, but I'm concerned about the bugs that
> were *removed* from the dependencies list.
>
> Why were they removed rather than being resolved?
>

See mgorny's comment in the bug:
Removing bugs for maintainer-use scripts. We need not to care about those.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev] Bug №504116, /etc/init.d/functions.sh

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:39:20AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:40 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 03:15:48PM +0300, Сергей wrote:
> >> Today two bugs from 504116's dependencies were resolved and two other
> >> bugs were removed from 504116's dependencies list. Thanks to
> >> maintainers who decided to solve the problem!
> >
> > The bugs being resolved is good, but I'm concerned about the bugs that
> > were *removed* from the dependencies list.
> >
> > Why were they removed rather than being resolved?
> >
> 
> See mgorny's comment in the bug:
> Removing bugs for maintainer-use scripts. We need not to care about those.

Ok, that makes sense.

William

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