1 |
On 15/11/16 02:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 15/11/16 02:42 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:57:14 -0500 |
5 |
>>> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>>> On 15/11/16 12:56 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
8 |
>>>>> OpenRC itself doesn't install any tmpfiles.d files, and my plan is to |
9 |
>>>>> make sure virtual/tmpfiles and opentmpfiles go stable at the same time |
10 |
>>>>> the new OpenRC does, along with at least one package that uses them. |
11 |
>>>>> |
12 |
>>>>> This will also definitely be covered in the upstream OpenRC news. |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> WRT OpenRC pulling it in, it isn't a build or runtime dependency of |
15 |
>>>>> OpenRC, and it may not even be needed in some cases, so I'm not sure how |
16 |
>>>>> much sense it makes from the OpenRC level to pull it in or which type of |
17 |
>>>>> dependency to use for it. |
18 |
>>>> |
19 |
>>>> I'm with William on this. As long as the packages that install items |
20 |
>>>> (init scripts, whatever) that -do- need tmpfiles.d support depend on |
21 |
>>>> virtual/tmpfilesd, this will ensure it's installed regardless of |
22 |
>>>> whether or not openrc depends on the virtual directly. |
23 |
>>> |
24 |
>>> The ebuilds are going to only need a pkg_*-time dependency on the tool. |
25 |
>>> While this means RDEPEND at the moment due to our dependency class |
26 |
>>> limits, we may have a proper dependency type for it in EAPI 7. In this |
27 |
>>> case, the PM will be allowed to unmerge opentmpfiles as soon |
28 |
>>> as the package is installed. |
29 |
>>> |
30 |
>> |
31 |
>> The EBUILDS, yes. |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> This tool isn't just for ebuilds though, it's also for managing |
34 |
>> tmpfiles.d processing at boot time as well as (i assume) via |
35 |
>> continuous daemon-like operation for the services that install files |
36 |
>> into /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/ (apache, libvirtd, lvm2, mysql, samba are |
37 |
>> just a few that I have on my own system right now) when systemd isn't |
38 |
>> installed. |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> Or am I wrong on this? It'd seem odd that we would go through this |
41 |
>> just to make a tool for ebuilds to use, if non-systemd systems aren't |
42 |
>> going to use it at boot time as well... |
43 |
> |
44 |
> Right; if the functionality is being stripped out of OpenRC, it will |
45 |
> definitely need to remain installed and provide init.d scripts for |
46 |
> processing at boot time. |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
Right, so we're back to how will we deal with the init scripts for |
50 |
openrc? I agree that the virtual suffices, and that openrc doesn't |
51 |
need tmpfiles.d processing and so likely shouldn't depend on the |
52 |
virtual. But the init scripts need to be there in some form or another. |
53 |
|
54 |
Can we make the virtual install the init.d scripts? I know it's not a |
55 |
true virtual in that case but still.. |
56 |
|
57 |
Or will opentmpfiles install the current set of scripts while systemd |
58 |
will install a systemd-specific set of scripts for openrc to use? |
59 |
That could work, and likely makes sense as the calling commands and |
60 |
possibly arguments will differ... |