Re: [gentoo-dev] /etc/init.d

[mbutcher]

Interesting suggestions, but to me your solution looks more complex than the 
status quo. Now, instead of just merging the files by hand, I have to:

1) Manage another set of scripts in another place (/etc/user.d), which makes 
troubleshooting harder.

2) Deal with another set of config files (If I'm reading your second 
paragraph correctly), which might break if a new ebuild adds or removes 
options that this config file must have.

3) Worry that any time I update a package, one of the scripts that _was_ 
playing nicely will now be broken without giving me so much as a warning.

If we used your proposal for '.modif' scripts, then updating a build might 
never warn us of the changes that _did_ take place, and _should_ be handled 
differently in the custom script. If we added the functionality to portage to 
warn us when a config script changed, then... well, we'd be back to where we 
started.

Also, I'd challenge the claim that 85-90% of Gentoo users do not alter their 
init scripts. That may be true for Red Hat or Mandrake (though users of those 
do have to update /etc/sysconfig files instead, which isn't any better to me).

To me, the attractive part about the way it works now is that it is simple 
and straightforward. I feel like I am in control of things when I update a 
package. It took me (and probably most people on this list) a minimal amount 
of time to learn the scheme, and now I rue the days when I used to spend 
hours debugging problems in Red Hat init scripts (only to have my fixes 
overwritten the next time I upgraded with RPM).

I understand that the current way might slow you down if you're running a lot 
of services. But to me, that's a small price to pay for soundness of mind and 
simple elegance.

Matt

On Monday 11 March 2002 11:16 am, Yannick Koehler wrote:
> Craig M. Reece wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 12:48:08PM -0500, Yannick Koehler spoke thusly:
> >>Guys,
> >>
> >>	not sure for anyone else but is init.d really need to be protected?
> >>	I mean does someone really change files in that directory (other than
> >>adding or removing)?
> >>
> >>	That dir should always get merged.  It would also get really nice of
> >>	the portage could detect that no changes has been made to the file since
> >>its installation and therefore merge it without any issues.
> >>
> >>	Like if the protected config file's time were saved in a temp files
> >>	that portage would look into before merging to see if the date has or
> >> not change since the last install.
> >
> > Yes it needs to be protected. I, for instance, have my own version of
> > pcmcia in there that I don't want stepped on. Also, I have a couple of
> > other custom scripts for things not in portage yet; and when they are in
> > portage, I want to be able to compare the differences before using one
> > or the other.
> > _______________________________________________
> > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > gentoo-dev@g.o
> > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>
> The reasoning I have is that those are scripts, and not config files.
> If ... instead of modifying pcmcia script for example like you
> mentionned you were to cp pcmcia pcmcia.modif and rc-update add
> pcmcia.modif default / rc-update del pcmcia default the system would
> work and you'll never get concerned about the new pcmcia scripts.
>
> If you changes those scripts maybe it's even better to tell people about
> your changes as they may get implemented such that the script itself
> read a config files (like net.eth0) so that other people can re-use your
> modifications.
>
> And maybe a user's scripts directory should exists, something like
> /etc/user.d where people can move their custom scripts and the stuff
> behind rc-update would got here first and if it doesn't found the script
> then to /etc/init.d.
>
> Yannick Koehler
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@g.o
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev