| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, 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 |
> Make it build-time configurable. Keep default at "rc". Let Debian and |
| 13 |
> others rename it as they want/need. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so |
| 16 |
>> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it |
| 17 |
>> and give a warning? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's change to change things, it doesn't fix any bugs we have. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> So don't break things for fun, please ... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Honestly, with Linux systems a symlink won't matter. Just rename the |
| 24 |
binary to "openrc" so that we are closer with Debian. It would be nice |
| 25 |
if in the future docs and blogs and other things could share the same |
| 26 |
info. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For Gentoo just symlink rc -> openrc and call it a day. There's also |
| 29 |
no reason to remove the symlink in the next release like others have |
| 30 |
said. Keep the thing around for as long as is possible. Cause if you |
| 31 |
drop it, you're liable to break someone upgrading an old system and |
| 32 |
they have a higher chance to miss an important ewarn and you know how |
| 33 |
much I hate breaking upgrades. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Doug Goldstein |
Archives