| 1 |
On 05/04/2016 04:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the |
| 9 |
>>>>>>> Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch |
| 10 |
>>>>>>> any init scripts installed from elsewhere. You should look for the |
| 11 |
>>>>>>> set of installed files instead. |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>>> How is that relevant here at all? I'm cleaning up portage installed |
| 14 |
>>>>>> init scripts, [...] |
| 15 |
>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>> You are cleaning up only those init scripts that are installed from |
| 17 |
>>>>> FILESDIR, but you will miss the ones that are installed from a file |
| 18 |
>>>>> in SRC_URI. |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>> Perhaps an alternate way to do it would be to have a QA check look at |
| 21 |
>>>> any files installed to ${D}etc/init.d/ and throw a warning if their |
| 22 |
>>>> shebang is "#!/sbin/runscript" |
| 23 |
>>>> |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> A repoman check is a much saner approach, I'm not convinced there is |
| 26 |
>>> sufficient need for this change to begin with, in particular to start |
| 27 |
>>> touching a wide range of packages. Breaking backwards compatibility in |
| 28 |
>>> any way should have a darn good reason, and I haven't seen one yet |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> I'm not arguing for or against it in general, just in terms of technical |
| 31 |
>> implementation. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> That being said, a repoman check would only catch those distributed in |
| 34 |
>> ${FILESDIR} as well. My thinking with the above was to also identify |
| 35 |
>> those installed from distfiles to be handled accordingly. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Actually, you won't need to worry about any qa checks in portage, |
| 38 |
> because I am going to put a deprecation warning in OpenRC upstream which |
| 39 |
> will be displayed when a service script invokes runscript instructing |
| 40 |
> you to convert to openrc-run. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> OpenRC will keep runscript, with this warning, for a while. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> William |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
This sounds like the most sane approach to me, in conjunction with a |
| 48 |
repoman warning or error once OpenRC announces deprecation 'upstream'. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 52 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 53 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives