1 |
On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: |
2 |
> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
3 |
>> All, |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to |
6 |
>> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, |
7 |
>> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be |
10 |
>> unique. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so |
13 |
>> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it |
14 |
>> and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is |
15 |
>> released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new |
16 |
>> release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> I'm not sure what else will break. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I |
21 |
>> make the changes upstream and have people let us know what |
22 |
>> else breaks? |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> William |
25 |
>> |
26 |
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 |
27 |
> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the |
28 |
> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc |
29 |
> -> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that |
30 |
> change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild |
31 |
> rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over |
32 |
> and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, |
33 |
> and it beats a ton of broken systems. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Chris Reffett |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
+1 |
40 |
|
41 |
The ebuild can grep the inittab and it if finds an "rc" there, just |
42 |
print a huge warning telling the user to migrate || die. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Regards, |
46 |
Markos Chandras |