| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Micha³ Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2014-03-10, o godz. 18:30:29 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> napisa³(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Also, do not add hard dependencies to your packages on gentoo-functions. |
| 6 |
>> The goal is to add gentoo-functions to @system once it is stable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Why? I'm pretty sure we were working on having more explicit deps |
| 9 |
> and less @system magic. This goes exactly the opposite way. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
++ |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Why not install it in the same place as openrc, create a virtual, and |
| 14 |
have the two block? Or move the file from openrc to the new package |
| 15 |
and have openrc depend on it (probably a cleaner solution if you can |
| 16 |
handle the transition)? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I definitely see the FHS logic in moving it out of /etc, though a |
| 19 |
compatibility symlink should probably be maintained for some time. |
| 20 |
I'm not sure about the config-protection implications of replacing a |
| 21 |
file with a symlink offhand - that might require a bit of special |
| 22 |
handling. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Packages should depend on whatever provides the script (either the |
| 25 |
virtual or the package depending on the approach chosen), but in the |
| 26 |
interim openrc or the virtual will be in the system set. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives