From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60FDF138330 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:58:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8689F21C09B; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A473E21C07D for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bcYh0-0001hD-Ir for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:58:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: newsitem: openrc runscript transition (draft 3) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:58:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20160822225743.GA19359@linux1> <20160824193205.0ad0f559@katipo2.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: Pan/0.141 (Tarzan's Death; GIT 04f6c8932) X-Archives-Salt: c9c8a9be-c947-4f5c-893d-c67168dd890d X-Archives-Hash: 83d93f404655c05cedb80c32d9f9e2c5 Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 24 Aug 2016 19:32:05 +1200 as excerpted: > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:57:43 -0500 William Hubbs > wrote: > >> I thought about dropping the version number from the >> display-if-installed line, but that doesn't make sense because it means >> that everyone, including all new installs of OpenRC after this version, >> would have to read the newsitem. >> >> William >> >> > That concern is in the wrong priority. > > "Your system might break" is more important than "ugh, annoying news > items" > > Viewing the news item once per clean install is still less of a > "Problem" than "everyone with an old system syncs, doesn't get any > warning, upgrades openrc to a version which breaks this, and they brick > their boot" If it was a bricking concern, yes, but this isn't about bricking (at least not within the scope of the current news item, and I'd expect another one before runscript is actually removed), it's about warnings that are for the user, harmless but irritating. So the priority could arguably be different. Note that I'm not actually saying it is (I haven't actually decided), only that unlike the possible bricking case, it arguably could be, because the possible bricking argument you used for justification doesn't apply. -- 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