* [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC @ 2013-12-11 20:41 William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Alon Bar-Lev ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-11 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo development [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 824 bytes --] All, We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be unique. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. I'm not sure what else will break. Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I make the changes upstream and have people let us know what else breaks? William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:41 [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC William Hubbs @ 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Alon Bar-Lev 2013-12-11 21:04 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Alon Bar-Lev @ 2013-12-11 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote: > > All, > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. > > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > unique. > > I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so > should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it > and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is > released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new > release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. > > I'm not sure what else will break. > > Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I > make the changes upstream and have people let us know what > else breaks? are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? > > William > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Alon Bar-Lev @ 2013-12-11 21:04 ` William Hubbs 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-11 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 562 bytes --] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. > > > > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > > are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc". William [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:41 [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Alon Bar-Lev @ 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett 2013-12-11 20:53 ` Markos Chandras ` (2 more replies) 2013-12-12 0:37 ` Patrick Lauer ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Chris Reffett @ 2013-12-11 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1387 bytes --] On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. > > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > unique. > > I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so > should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it > and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is > released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new > release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. > > I'm not sure what else will break. > > Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I > make the changes upstream and have people let us know what > else breaks? > > William > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. Chris Reffett [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2118 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett @ 2013-12-11 20:53 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 21:28 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan 2013-12-11 20:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Paul Tagliamonte 2013-12-11 21:28 ` Rich Freeman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Markos Chandras @ 2013-12-11 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: > On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to >> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, >> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. >> >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be >> unique. >> >> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so >> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it >> and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is >> released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new >> release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. >> >> I'm not sure what else will break. >> >> Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I >> make the changes upstream and have people let us know what >> else breaks? >> >> William >> >> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 > The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the > context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc > -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that > change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild > rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over > and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, > and it beats a ton of broken systems. > > Chris Reffett > > +1 The ebuild can grep the inittab and it if finds an "rc" there, just print a huge warning telling the user to migrate || die. -- Regards, Markos Chandras ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:53 ` Markos Chandras @ 2013-12-11 21:28 ` Duncan 2013-12-11 22:46 ` William Hubbs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Duncan @ 2013-12-11 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:53:04 +0000 as excerpted: > On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: >> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: >>> >>> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be >>> unique. >>> >>> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so >>> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it >>> and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is >>> released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new >>> release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. >> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the >> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming >> rc -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that >> change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild >> rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over >> and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, >> and it beats a ton of broken systems. > +1 > > The ebuild can grep the inittab and it if finds an "rc" there, just > print a huge warning telling the user to migrate || die. I think it's worth noting two small details of williamh's original mail that may have gone unnoticed: 1) He proposes seding the *LIVE* ebuild, which I take as meaning openrc-9999. 2) He then proposes p.masking an openrc release until a sysvinit release updating inittab, with the contrast between that and the LIVE ebuild proposal thus again emphasized. Question: How many people run the openrc-9999 LIVE ebuild, and given that it's masked and general gentoo policy is that people running live ebuilds should expect to keep the pieces of they can't handle occasionally unpredicted changes, how much should we actually worry about doing just that? *I ask the above as an openrc-9999 user myself! Of course, I also not only follow this list for heads-up notes such as this, but I also have a partially scripted update routine that checks openrc for changes every time I update, runs git log to check them out if there are any, and further runs git show on anything that I have questions about, *BEFORE* I actually do the update. There's certainly a small window between my checks and the actual run of the openrc emerge, during which a git commit or two might in theory slip in, but other than that, I'd see such a change BEFORE I ever actually installed that openrc live update in the first place. As a result, while I probably wouldn't have noted the linkage to inittab without this mail, I would have at least been aware of the name change when I did that live-build update, and would be prepared to boot with init=/bin/bash and find the problem, should it come to that, as I know it well might given the live-ebuild I choose to run. Meanwhile, given the openrc-9999 bug history, with me as about the only bug reporter, I don't think there's that many actually running it. Certainly nothing I'd qualify as "a ton of broken systems" even if there's no sed and every one of those running it fails to see the warning until they've rebooted and suffered the consequences. And the p.mask proposal for an actual release with the change, until a parallel sysvinit package update likely unmasked at the same time, does sound appropriately more responsible for ~arch as well, thus making both proposals at least not entirely insane. Tho I too am a bit uncomfortable about sedding inittab directly from the ebuild. Assuming it can work, the more gradual symlink and safer grep proposals sound much more reasonable, even at the live ebuild level. Tho that said, given that I /am/ running a live ebuild for something as critical as openrc, if sed screws up and replaces the current inittab with an empty file, I'd better be prepared to deal with it. That's part of the risk I took when unmasking that ebuild. Now I'd be rather more annoyed if the ebuild pulled a trick like I did in one of my own scripts a few years ago, such that I used the wrong variable name as the absolute prefix to a rm command run as root, and said mis-named variable ended up null... I was brown-bagging /that/ one for a few days! =:^\ But killing a single inittab file, meh! If I can't deal with that, I've no business running an openrc-9999 version! -- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 21:28 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan @ 2013-12-11 22:46 ` William Hubbs 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-11 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2507 bytes --] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:28:09PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Markos Chandras posted on Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:53:04 +0000 as excerpted: > > > On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: > >> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > >>> > >>> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > >>> unique. > >>> > >>> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so > >>> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it > >>> and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is > >>> released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new > >>> release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. > > >> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the > >> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming > >> rc -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that > >> change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild > >> rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over > >> and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, > >> and it beats a ton of broken systems. > > > +1 > > > > The ebuild can grep the inittab and it if finds an "rc" there, just > > print a huge warning telling the user to migrate || die. > > I think it's worth noting two small details of williamh's original mail > that may have gone unnoticed: > > 1) He proposes seding the *LIVE* ebuild, which I take as meaning > openrc-9999. > > 2) He then proposes p.masking an openrc release until a sysvinit release > updating inittab, with the contrast between that and the LIVE ebuild > proposal thus again emphasized. > > Question: How many people run the openrc-9999 LIVE ebuild, and given that > it's masked and general gentoo policy is that people running live ebuilds > should expect to keep the pieces of they can't handle occasionally > unpredicted changes, how much should we actually worry about doing just > that? We don't have to worry about the live ebuild per se, I was more concerned about what to do when the next release comes out. Duncan, it sounds like you would know how to recover with the live ebuild. But, with the proposal of creating a symlink from /sbin/rc->openrc, there would no longer be a reason to p.mask the next release, because people would be able to upgrade. A news item would definitely be appropriate though. William [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett 2013-12-11 20:53 ` Markos Chandras @ 2013-12-11 20:56 ` Paul Tagliamonte 2013-12-11 21:09 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 21:28 ` Rich Freeman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Paul Tagliamonte @ 2013-12-11 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1471 bytes --] [I'm not the OpenRC maintainer, I'm only on gentoo-devel because I'm generally interested, and I saw this, I'm not speaking for zigo or anything here.] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Chris Reffett wrote: > The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the > context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc > -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that > change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild > rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and > die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it > beats a ton of broken systems. > > Chris Reffett Hi, Gentoo (and hello world), I'm breaking my streak of lurking to comment generally on the Debian procedure here. I'm sure the Debian folks would be happy to strip the symlink from the deb over having to patch OpenRC's rc binary => openrc against the upstream source. Shipping /usr/bin/rc => /usr/bin/openrc would be totally cool for Debian, I believe. Hopefully the OpenRC team will come in and correct me if I'm wrong :) Fondly, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Paul Tagliamonte @ 2013-12-11 21:09 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 21:14 ` Paul Tagliamonte 2013-12-11 22:50 ` William Hubbs 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Markos Chandras @ 2013-12-11 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 12/11/2013 08:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > [I'm not the OpenRC maintainer, I'm only on gentoo-devel because I'm > generally interested, and I saw this, I'm not speaking for zigo or > anything here.] > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Chris Reffett wrote: >> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the >> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc >> -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that >> change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild >> rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and >> die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it >> beats a ton of broken systems. >> >> Chris Reffett > > Hi, Gentoo (and hello world), > > I'm breaking my streak of lurking to comment generally on the Debian > procedure here. > > I'm sure the Debian folks would be happy to strip the symlink from the > deb over having to patch OpenRC's rc binary => openrc against the > upstream source. > > Shipping /usr/bin/rc => /usr/bin/openrc would be totally cool for > Debian, I believe. Hopefully the OpenRC team will come in and correct me > if I'm wrong :) > > Fondly, > Paul > If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately. I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename "rc" to "openrc" in their openrc package just before merging it to the read filesystem (I assume Debian also builds and installs in sandbox first?)? In this case we will not have to touch openrc (or the ebuild) at all. -- Regards, Markos Chandras ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 21:09 ` Markos Chandras @ 2013-12-11 21:14 ` Paul Tagliamonte 2013-12-11 22:50 ` William Hubbs 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Paul Tagliamonte @ 2013-12-11 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1183 bytes --] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +0000, Markos Chandras wrote: > If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path > for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately. Awesome. Great to hear it! > I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename "rc" to "openrc" in > their openrc package just before merging it to the read filesystem (I > assume Debian also builds and installs in sandbox first?)? In this case > we will not have to touch openrc (or the ebuild) at all. Again, I'm not the maintainer, so don't hold me to this - but I remember hearing something about something somewhere thinking the name is `rc', even after moving the binary out of the way. It'd also be great to have a similar setup in Gentoo and Debian, but I can clearly see how Gentoo'ers would be resistant to such a tough change to make. > -- > Regards, > Markos Chandras Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 21:09 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 21:14 ` Paul Tagliamonte @ 2013-12-11 22:50 ` William Hubbs 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-11 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 650 bytes --] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +0000, Markos Chandras wrote: > If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path > for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately. > I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename "rc" to "openrc" in > their openrc package just before merging it to the read filesystem (I > assume Debian also builds and installs in sandbox first?)? In this case > we will not have to touch openrc (or the ebuild) at all. No, because of the symlinks that we point to it. Remember that rc is a multi-call binary. for example, all of the symlinks in /lib*/rc/bin will have to be adjusted. William [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett 2013-12-11 20:53 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 20:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Paul Tagliamonte @ 2013-12-11 21:28 ` Rich Freeman 2013-12-12 0:41 ` Patrick Lauer 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Rich Freeman @ 2013-12-11 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett <creffett@gentoo.org> wrote: > The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the > context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc -> > openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change > concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than > in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it > takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton > of broken systems. ++ No reason the symlink couldn't be done in the ebuild either - which keeps the package itself clean. There could be news to clean up inittab and such, and then perhaps down the road the compat symlink could be removed. Nice to see interest in Debian (granted, I know there was interest quite a while back). Having more and better options is just good for everybody - I'd like to see OpenRC become the best traditional-style service manager around (though honestly I'd be hard-pressed to think of any that are quite as good already). I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a systemd-compatibility init.d script. That would be symlinked to a service name just like a typical network interface script, and would look for a unit file and interpret it (perhaps just taking a path from conf.d). I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do, setting aside the more active-management features of systemd. Rich ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 21:28 ` Rich Freeman @ 2013-12-12 0:41 ` Patrick Lauer 2013-12-12 8:26 ` [gentoo-dev] " Martin Vaeth 2013-12-12 12:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Rich Freeman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Patrick Lauer @ 2013-12-12 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett <creffett@gentoo.org> wrote: >> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the >> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc -> >> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change >> concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than >> in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it >> takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton >> of broken systems. > > ++ > > No reason the symlink couldn't be done in the ebuild either - which > keeps the package itself clean. There could be news to clean up > inittab and such, and then perhaps down the road the compat symlink > could be removed. > > Nice to see interest in Debian (granted, I know there was interest > quite a while back). Having more and better options is just good for > everybody - I'd like to see OpenRC become the best traditional-style > service manager around (though honestly I'd be hard-pressed to think > of any that are quite as good already). > > I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a > systemd-compatibility init.d script. That would be symlinked to a > service name just like a typical network interface script, and would > look for a unit file and interpret it (perhaps just taking a path from > conf.d). I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do, setting aside the more > active-management features of systemd. > Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ... I've thought about it and can't figure out a way to make mixed-mode work sanely, at all. You'd have to either manually order the startup sequence, or annotate the unit files with dependency info. Plus you'd need some machinery like socket-activation proxies or you're throwing away even more (to the point where the unit file is just a way to run an executable) I don't think this can be done in a way that adds value to users. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-12 0:41 ` Patrick Lauer @ 2013-12-12 8:26 ` Martin Vaeth 2013-12-12 12:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Rich Freeman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Martin Vaeth @ 2013-12-12 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a >> systemd-compatibility init.d script. [...] > I don't think this can be done in a way that adds value to users. The converse is simpler and for certain cases already available (the short openrc-wrapper script in the mv overlay): You can use (simple) init.d scripts from within systemd. Moreover, systemd's static /etc/modules-load.d mechanism can trivially be emulated with the following line in /etc/conf.d/modules: modules=$(sed -n -e '/^[^;#]/p' /etc/modules-load.d/*.conf \ /usr/lib/modules-load.d/*.conf 2>/dev/null) Using both mechanisms, it is not too hard to setup a system which can boot with both init systems without duplicating too much configuration (for that configuration which is in the intersection of the features of both systems). Main duplication is the netifrc/netctl setup which would be way too complex to use outside of openrc/systemd. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-12 0:41 ` Patrick Lauer 2013-12-12 8:26 ` [gentoo-dev] " Martin Vaeth @ 2013-12-12 12:56 ` Rich Freeman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Rich Freeman @ 2013-12-12 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote: > Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ... > Sure they do. They declare wants, after, wantedby, etc. Looking in my /usr/lib/systemd/system it seems like all the units I looked at declared their dependencies. I don't know how systemd could do parallel service startup otherwise. Of course, the challenge will be that those dependencies are against other systemd units/targets/etc and not against openrc scripts. For the standards stuff you could translate, or perhaps even create virtual services as a translation layer. Also, systemd dependencies could be against sockets vs full services, so again that is a translation challenge (though openrc could still wait until the full service is launched and not manage sockets). I'm just thinking that in the long term it seems likely that upstream will be supplying working systemd units, and fairly unlikely to supply working openrc scripts. If there is a shift of devs towards running systemd that could translate into daemons in the tree that don't have openrc scripts but do have systemd units. A compatibility layer would make that less of an issue. However, just as devs and users frequently submit systemd units for packages that don't have them, I'm sure that the same will happen for packages that lack openrc scripts. Rich ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:41 [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Alon Bar-Lev 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett @ 2013-12-12 0:37 ` Patrick Lauer 2013-12-12 1:38 ` Doug Goldstein 2013-12-12 7:41 ` Samuli Suominen 2013-12-12 15:46 ` Alexander Berntsen 4 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Patrick Lauer @ 2013-12-12 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. > > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > unique. Make it build-time configurable. Keep default at "rc". Let Debian and others rename it as they want/need. > I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so > should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it > and give a warning? It's change to change things, it doesn't fix any bugs we have. So don't break things for fun, please ... > I know that once OpenRC with this change is > released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new > release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. > > I'm not sure what else will break. > > Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I > make the changes upstream and have people let us know what > else breaks? > > William > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-12 0:37 ` Patrick Lauer @ 2013-12-12 1:38 ` Doug Goldstein 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Doug Goldstein @ 2013-12-12 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote: >> All, >> >> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to >> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, >> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. >> >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be >> unique. > > Make it build-time configurable. Keep default at "rc". Let Debian and > others rename it as they want/need. > >> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so >> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it >> and give a warning? > > It's change to change things, it doesn't fix any bugs we have. > > So don't break things for fun, please ... Honestly, with Linux systems a symlink won't matter. Just rename the binary to "openrc" so that we are closer with Debian. It would be nice if in the future docs and blogs and other things could share the same info. For Gentoo just symlink rc -> openrc and call it a day. There's also no reason to remove the symlink in the next release like others have said. Keep the thing around for as long as is possible. Cause if you drop it, you're liable to break someone upgrading an old system and they have a higher chance to miss an important ewarn and you know how much I hate breaking upgrades. -- Doug Goldstein ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:41 [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC William Hubbs ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-12 0:37 ` Patrick Lauer @ 2013-12-12 7:41 ` Samuli Suominen 2013-12-12 15:15 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-12 15:46 ` Alexander Berntsen 4 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Samuli Suominen @ 2013-12-12 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. which we ship as app-shells/rc and rename 'rc' to 'rcsh' for unique name just saying ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-12 7:41 ` Samuli Suominen @ 2013-12-12 15:15 ` William Hubbs 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-12 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 611 bytes --] On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:41:10AM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to > > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, > > which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. > > which we ship as app-shells/rc and rename 'rc' to 'rcsh' for unique name > > just saying This is a separate topic, but maybe we should stop renaming it after a transition period. I am not comfortable with renaming upstream binaries at the distro level. William [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-11 20:41 [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC William Hubbs ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2013-12-12 7:41 ` Samuli Suominen @ 2013-12-12 15:46 ` Alexander Berntsen 2013-12-13 12:31 ` Samuli Suominen 2013-12-13 15:59 ` Mike Gilbert 4 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Alexander Berntsen @ 2013-12-12 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > unique. orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow mascot). On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >> are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? > > No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc". Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related executables, just like with rc now. - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlKp2lcACgkQRtClrXBQc7XnwgEAsA4Z7Zgw351tyP9QfbVqOPK6 KYXCvKXqqJGpcDKvgRIA/jbIWS10BR/7a/kmeOUIeo50qOU4GehQ7PwKWHzI4tUS =SLXN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-12 15:46 ` Alexander Berntsen @ 2013-12-13 12:31 ` Samuli Suominen 2013-12-13 13:31 ` Alexander Berntsen 2013-12-13 15:59 ` Mike Gilbert 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Samuli Suominen @ 2013-12-13 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev On 12/12/13 17:46, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: > > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > > unique. > orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow > mascot). > orc is dev-lang/orc, with binaries like orc-bugreport > On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at > 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? > > > No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc". > Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing > orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related > executables, just like with rc now. > as said, with tab completion, orc-* would just get mixed up with binaries from dev-lang/orc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-13 12:31 ` Samuli Suominen @ 2013-12-13 13:31 ` Alexander Berntsen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Alexander Berntsen @ 2013-12-13 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 13/12/13 13:31, Samuli Suominen wrote: > orc is dev-lang/orc, with binaries like orc-bugreport That's fine. There is no binary, orc. > as said, with tab completion, orc-* would just get mixed up with > binaries from dev-lang/orc Tab-completing orc- will only have one executable not related to openrc. If you tab-complete "open" (which is already longer to type) on most systems, you get a lot more. So you'd have to tab-complete openrc. That's a lot longer than orc-. Also, I would just tab-complete orc. orcc is obviously a compiler. Most people have rcc (also obviously a compiler) on their system, so we have that "issue" now as well. So to sum up: I still think it's fine to call it orc. But honestly, there are no catastrophic candidates. Any further discussion is mostly just bikeshedding. Let's just nominate some candidates and vote. :-) - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlKrDBYACgkQRtClrXBQc7XK1gEArFhx0BE2eELesWVQ1p0KyxKC TEkWlaqZZsxhvSTHf5cA/2jlE5QcODLk765pbmppIB/aw32BfVYSNxUHXssY4tsx =iAkb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-12 15:46 ` Alexander Berntsen 2013-12-13 12:31 ` Samuli Suominen @ 2013-12-13 15:59 ` Mike Gilbert 2013-12-13 17:23 ` William Hubbs 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Mike Gilbert @ 2013-12-13 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw To: Gentoo Dev On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be >> unique. > orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow > mascot). > > On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at > 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: >>> are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? >> >> No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc". > Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing > orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related > executables, just like with rc now. > That makes no sense; there is almost no reason to manually invoke the "rc" binary currently, an Gentoo users are already familiar with names like "rc-update" and "service". Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-13 15:59 ` Mike Gilbert @ 2013-12-13 17:23 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-13 19:53 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-13 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1494 bytes --] On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen > <alexander@plaimi.net> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: > >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be > >> unique. > > orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow > > mascot). > > > > On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at > > 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >>> are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? > >> > >> No, there isn't a need for that, just "rc". > > Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing > > orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related > > executables, just like with rc now. > > > > That makes no sense; there is almost no reason to manually invoke the > "rc" binary currently, an Gentoo users are already familiar with names > like "rc-update" and "service". There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should be changing runlevels. > Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason. Right, there is no reason to rename everything. In git, what I've done is rename rc to openrc and provide rc as a backward compatibility symlink. I agree with the comment earlier in the thread; debating the name is just bikeshedding. William [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-13 17:23 ` William Hubbs @ 2013-12-13 19:53 ` Duncan 2013-12-13 22:03 ` William Hubbs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Duncan @ 2013-12-13 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted: > There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should > be changing runlevels. ??? init 9 (or telinit 9, yes, I have a runlevel 9, basic, just gpm as it happens) isn't appropriate? Of course, with gentoo's inittab, init then simply calls rc, but if rc is called directly, how does init know to change its runlevel, as seen as if it were passed on its commandline in top, etc? And what about additional wait/once/respawn entries? How will init know to take care of them? -- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-13 19:53 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan @ 2013-12-13 22:03 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-14 12:47 ` Duncan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: William Hubbs @ 2013-12-13 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 890 bytes --] On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:53:59PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted: > > > There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should > > be changing runlevels. > > ??? > > init 9 (or telinit 9, yes, I have a runlevel 9, basic, just gpm as it > happens) isn't appropriate? Well, I have to qualify what I said. There are two "runlevels" you have to worry about. The OpenRC runlevels are named; you can switch between these using rc directly, for example: rc default rc single rc nonetwork The sysvinit runlevels are the numbered ones, and these are mapped to things to run, like 3 is mapped to /sbin/rc default. I believe runlevel 3 is mapped to other things in inittab, so, I guess the best answer is, it depends on what you are wanting to change. Does that make sense? William [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC 2013-12-13 22:03 ` William Hubbs @ 2013-12-14 12:47 ` Duncan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Duncan @ 2013-12-14 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:03:57 -0600 as excerpted: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:53:59PM +0000, Duncan wrote: >> William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted: >> >>> There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you >>> should be changing runlevels. >> >> ??? >> >> init 9 (or telinit 9, yes, I have a runlevel 9, basic, just gpm as it >> happens) isn't appropriate? > > Well, I have to qualify what I said. > > There are two "runlevels" you have to worry about. > The OpenRC runlevels are named; you can switch between these using rc > directly, for example: > > rc default > rc single > rc nonetwork > > The sysvinit runlevels are the numbered ones, and these are mapped to > things to run, like 3 is mapped to /sbin/rc default. I believe runlevel > 3 is mapped to other things in inittab, so, I guess the best answer is, > it depends on what you are wanting to change. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. Thanks. -- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-12-14 12:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-12-11 20:41 [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Alon Bar-Lev 2013-12-11 21:04 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:47 ` Chris Reffett 2013-12-11 20:53 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 21:28 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan 2013-12-11 22:46 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-11 20:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Paul Tagliamonte 2013-12-11 21:09 ` Markos Chandras 2013-12-11 21:14 ` Paul Tagliamonte 2013-12-11 22:50 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-11 21:28 ` Rich Freeman 2013-12-12 0:41 ` Patrick Lauer 2013-12-12 8:26 ` [gentoo-dev] " Martin Vaeth 2013-12-12 12:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Rich Freeman 2013-12-12 0:37 ` Patrick Lauer 2013-12-12 1:38 ` Doug Goldstein 2013-12-12 7:41 ` Samuli Suominen 2013-12-12 15:15 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-12 15:46 ` Alexander Berntsen 2013-12-13 12:31 ` Samuli Suominen 2013-12-13 13:31 ` Alexander Berntsen 2013-12-13 15:59 ` Mike Gilbert 2013-12-13 17:23 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-13 19:53 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan 2013-12-13 22:03 ` William Hubbs 2013-12-14 12:47 ` Duncan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox