| 1 |
Dnia 2014-03-13, o godz. 07:59:55 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/13/2014 12:52 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >>> No, I don't think gentoo-functions should take over the symbolic |
| 7 |
> >>> link in /etc/init.d/functions.sh; that needs to stay with OpenRc. |
| 8 |
> >>> My plan there is to work that into a script that prints a warning |
| 9 |
> >>> message. It will stay that way until openrc-1.0. OpenRc upstream |
| 10 |
> >>> uses semantic versioning [2]. This means that as long as we are at |
| 11 |
> >>> 0.x we have to keep things backward compatible. |
| 12 |
> >>> |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> ...why not? As you've said yourself, nothing related to openrc uses |
| 15 |
> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh; if everything else in the tree is going to |
| 16 |
> >> use the new gentoo-functions "lib", why wouldn't custom end-user |
| 17 |
> >> scripts too? |
| 18 |
> >> |
| 19 |
> >> (again, scanned the bug, didn't see anything relevant to this) |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > The relevance is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is currently part of |
| 22 |
> > OpenRc's public API, and semantic versioning has a very specific |
| 23 |
> > description of how to deprecate functionality. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Why deprecate it? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I'm getting really irritated with the current trend of randomly renaming |
| 28 |
> and movearounding things. All it does is confuse people, break existing |
| 29 |
> setups and make documentation splitbrained (now you need to document two |
| 30 |
> things, and half the old docs won't be aware of it ...) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
See: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3357 |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives