| 1 |
On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:59:55 +0800 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/13/2014 12:52 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Why deprecate it? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'm getting really irritated with the current trend of randomly |
| 9 |
> renaming and movearounding things. All it does is confuse people, |
| 10 |
> break existing setups and make documentation splitbrained (now you |
| 11 |
> need to document two things, and half the old docs won't be aware of |
| 12 |
> it ...) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So I guess it boils down to "What does the /usr movearounding gain |
| 15 |
> us", err, what does renaming bits of OpenRC improve? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The best explanations so far I've seen are "it's nicer", "we've |
| 18 |
> already done it" and "eh mate, why not? is groovy" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > If Gentoo needs the symlink after it is removed from OpenRc, I think |
| 21 |
> > that is the time we can talk about putting it in gentoo-functions. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Now that is funny, but why move it away just so that users panic and |
| 24 |
> re-add the wrong flavour of it? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Well, progress I guess: If you change enough things in trivial ways |
| 27 |
> you can claim innovation and show a great rate of change ("I'm not |
| 28 |
> dead yet!") |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I would say it's because library code such as that really does not |
| 32 |
belong in /etc and placing it there in the first place was a mistake. |
| 33 |
This is an attempt to correct the mistake without just breaking |
| 34 |
everything without warning. |
Archives