1 |
On 04.05.2016 11:19, Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 04 May 2016 10:00:05 +0200 as excerpted: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the Portage |
7 |
>>>> tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch any init |
8 |
>>>> scripts installed from elsewhere. You should look for the set of |
9 |
>>>> installed files instead. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>>> How is that relevant here at all? I'm cleaning up portage installed |
12 |
>>> init scripts, [...] |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> You are cleaning up only those init scripts that are installed from |
15 |
>> FILESDIR, but you will miss the ones that are installed from a file in |
16 |
>> SRC_URI. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> While you are correct, the current problem isn't lack of low hanging |
19 |
> fruit to fix in the files dir, as he said there's 700 packages on the |
20 |
> list already, too many to file individual bugs for. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> So while it is indeed worthwhile to keep in mind the init-scripts |
23 |
> installed from SRC_URI... |
24 |
> |
25 |
> There's seven hundred "miles of open road" to cross before we have to |
26 |
> worry about that SRC_URI bridge, so maybe worry about that when we're |
27 |
> within 50 or 100, or even a couple hundred, "miles", not 700. =:^] |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Hi Austin, |
31 |
|
32 |
to be honest, I'm not too happy with the fixes you applied. |
33 |
Although it's just a tiny change, I'd rather have expected a revision |
34 |
bump to the ebuilds and a revision bump to the init files themselves |
35 |
than just a in-file rewrite. |
36 |
Your fix changes the content of files that are installed to ones system. |
37 |
Such a change usually requires a revbump. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
Cheers, |
41 |
|
42 |
Manuel |