| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 09:14:58AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> yeah.. I scanned that bug, saw his arguments, but didn't see anything |
| 3 |
> afterwards that seemed to address his arguments (nor anything that |
| 4 |
> specifically addressed the removal of /etc/init.d/functions.sh as the |
| 5 |
> de-facto location). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C74 |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is the first point when I proposed moving the file with a good |
| 10 |
argument and asked vapier to weigh in. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Below are several points in the discussion where it was made clear that |
| 13 |
we were moving the file, and also vapier participated in reviewing |
| 14 |
alternate implementations. He suggested making this part of baselayout |
| 15 |
instead of introducing a new package. I asked him to connect with me so |
| 16 |
we could talk about why he felt that was a good place for it (since I |
| 17 |
didn't because it may need more maintenance than baselayout does). That |
| 18 |
connect never happened for whatever reason. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C93 |
| 21 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C95 |
| 22 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C96 |
| 23 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C116 |
| 24 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C119 |
| 25 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C120 |
| 26 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219#C124 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> > No, I don't think gentoo-functions should take over the symbolic |
| 29 |
> > link in /etc/init.d/functions.sh; that needs to stay with OpenRc. |
| 30 |
> > My plan there is to work that into a script that prints a warning |
| 31 |
> > message. It will stay that way until openrc-1.0. OpenRc upstream |
| 32 |
> > uses semantic versioning [2]. This means that as long as we are at |
| 33 |
> > 0.x we have to keep things backward compatible. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> ...why not? As you've said yourself, nothing related to openrc uses |
| 37 |
> /etc/init.d/functions.sh; if everything else in the tree is going to |
| 38 |
> use the new gentoo-functions "lib", why wouldn't custom end-user |
| 39 |
> scripts too? |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> (again, scanned the bug, didn't see anything relevant to this) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The relevance is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is currently part of |
| 44 |
OpenRc's public API, and semantic versioning has a very specific |
| 45 |
description of how to deprecate functionality. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If Gentoo needs the symlink after it is removed from OpenRc, I think |
| 48 |
that is the time we can talk about putting it in gentoo-functions. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> >> Also, just to confirm, this new path is compatible with the |
| 51 |
> >> einfo package used as part of Prefix, yes? Or other arrangements |
| 52 |
> >> have been made (ie, the einfo package will be dropped from |
| 53 |
> >> baselayout-prefix)? |
| 54 |
> > |
| 55 |
> > No one has said anything to me about prefix so I don't know what |
| 56 |
> > they want to do. To be honest I would prefer that they drop einfo. |
| 57 |
> > unless there is a good reason for them not to. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> This is something that should probably be managed, then, before the |
| 60 |
> migration to gentoo-functions is completed -- anyone here from th |
| 61 |
> prefix team, that wants to weigh in? Will gentoo-functions work in |
| 62 |
> prefix (well enough to replace einfo)? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=504284 |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
William |
Archives