1 |
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2013-09-13, o godz. 19:16:06 |
3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> napisał(a): |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> OpenRC currently has a public api, consisting of librc and libeinfo |
6 |
>> (rc.h and einfo.h are the headers); however, I do not know of any |
7 |
>> released software that uses these, so, if there is nothing, I am |
8 |
>> considering making this code private to OpenRC and getting rid of the |
9 |
>> API. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I won't oppose since I don't use OpenRC anymore and therefore my |
12 |
> opinion doesn't really matter here. However, I can't help but notice |
13 |
> a particular trend since Roy left the project. I see that OpenRC is |
14 |
> slowly regressing towards baselayout-1. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> First the oldnet thingie being made the default back. While I can |
17 |
> understand why people wanted it so badly, this doesn't make this less |
18 |
> of a carousel for Gentoo users. I mean, changing defaults with every |
19 |
> maintainer change. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Then, functions.sh split. While itself good, I don't get what's |
22 |
> the benefit of converting the bash script from baselayout-1 while |
23 |
> a better one was provided with OpenRC. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Now removing the public API because you don't care. While it may have |
26 |
> been unused indeed, it's simply crippling the thing, not making it more |
27 |
> useful. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I'd like to see some kind of plan behind all this. Because as far as I |
30 |
> can see, it's just new maintainers slowly dropping all the new features |
31 |
> they don't care about without any specific vision. No offense intended. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> If OpenRC really wants to compete with systemd, it should at least have |
34 |
> some design plan, and you really should start working on providing |
35 |
> useful features rather than reverting, crippling and rewriting for |
36 |
> the sake of changing things. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Just some material to think about. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> -- |
41 |
> Best regards, |
42 |
> Michał Górny |
43 |
|
44 |
I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but mgorny has a point. While |
45 |
it may not be immediately obvious, libeinfo is very useful, especially |
46 |
if your project aims to integrate nicely into a Gentoo system, by |
47 |
providing a standard set of printing functions with the formatting |
48 |
taken care of, resulting in output that is very familiar to users and |
49 |
is easy to scan with the eyes when looking for problems. One |
50 |
potential use-case would be reimplementing eselect in C. Not that I'm |
51 |
saying that this should happen, but anybody who attempts to do this |
52 |
would certainly appreciate having this bit taken care of for them. I |
53 |
would be more than willing to assist with maintenance of the library, |
54 |
even if split out into its own package, since it's small and rather |
55 |
simplistic, so there's unlikely to be any issues. I see no reason why |
56 |
we should remove something that isn't broken and doesn't cause us any |
57 |
maintenance burden. If somebody does open a bug against OpenRC |
58 |
because of an issue they're encountering while trying to use libeinfo, |
59 |
I give full license to assign the bug to me, and I'll happily |
60 |
investigate the issue. |
61 |
|
62 |
-Doug |