| 1 |
On 05/05/16 08:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users |
| 4 |
> that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
To quote an old proverb .. "you can't make an omelette without breaking |
| 7 |
eggs" .. if you wish me to explain, I'll do it privately ;) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I don't think anyone (gentoo-wide) is out to make users life difficult, |
| 11 |
or make significant work for the precious few package maintainers there |
| 12 |
are. There will always be a certain amount of 'change for change's sake' |
| 13 |
and whilst there may not always be a direct benefit, there are often |
| 14 |
desirable side-effects. I'm not saying this is necessarily a case in |
| 15 |
point, though. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I hear the arguments that we are upholding upstream's progression, and I |
| 18 |
think that remains one of Gentoo's overriding goals. Sure if its really |
| 19 |
a problem for you, fork openrc, maintain it or leave it to bit-rot if |
| 20 |
you really think that 'runscript' is the only way to start services. |
| 21 |
We/I can't get inside the maintainers head (and wouldn't wish to .. mine |
| 22 |
is spaghetti enough already, tyvm!) but rest assured I don't think this |
| 23 |
is a debian/fedora/systemd/<insert-your-personal-distaste-here> issue, |
| 24 |
and I think we should just let them get on with it, and be grateful we |
| 25 |
have been warned, and this isn't an epic surprise that will generate a |
| 26 |
whole stack of reverts down-the-line where someone hasn't done a |
| 27 |
reasonable impact assessment of their change... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
ok, that's $2 now .. I'll shut up .. I got Real Work to do too ... |
Archives