| 1 |
Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, |
| 4 |
> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> What problem is being solved here? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
For one thing, the namespace issue of runscript being generic, while |
| 9 |
openrc-run is properly namespaced and thus much less likely to conflict |
| 10 |
with anything else. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That would be why openrc's upstream maintainer is changing the name, with |
| 13 |
appropriate deprecation notice for the old one. Given that, what gentoo |
| 14 |
has to decide is how it's going to respond to that. Sure, we /could/ |
| 15 |
rename the executable to runscript here and be done with it, but that |
| 16 |
would violate gentoo's policy of defaulting to consistency with upstream |
| 17 |
unless there's a very good reason not to. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The fact that the packages upstream maintainer happens to be a gentoo dev |
| 20 |
and that gentoo happens to host the project and be its primary testing |
| 21 |
ground and user base shouldn't change that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Of course if upstream policy is thought by devs willing to do the work to |
| 24 |
be irrational, they can of course fork the package. There's certainly |
| 25 |
precedent for that. But someone's gotta be willing to do the work |
| 26 |
necessary to create and maintain that fork, so... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives