| 1 |
On 03/12/2014 7:59 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/13/2014 12:52 AM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>>> No, I don't think gentoo-functions should take over the symbolic |
| 5 |
>>>> link in /etc/init.d/functions.sh; that needs to stay with OpenRc. |
| 6 |
>>>> My plan there is to work that into a script that prints a warning |
| 7 |
>>>> message. It will stay that way until openrc-1.0. OpenRc upstream |
| 8 |
>>>> uses semantic versioning [2]. This means that as long as we are at |
| 9 |
>>>> 0.x we have to keep things backward compatible. |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> ...why not? As you've said yourself, nothing related to openrc uses |
| 13 |
>>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh; if everything else in the tree is going to |
| 14 |
>>> use the new gentoo-functions "lib", why wouldn't custom end-user |
| 15 |
>>> scripts too? |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> (again, scanned the bug, didn't see anything relevant to this) |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> The relevance is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is currently part of |
| 20 |
>> OpenRc's public API, and semantic versioning has a very specific |
| 21 |
>> description of how to deprecate functionality. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Why deprecate it? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I'm getting really irritated with the current trend of randomly renaming |
| 26 |
> and movearounding things. All it does is confuse people, break existing |
| 27 |
> setups and make documentation splitbrained (now you need to document two |
| 28 |
> things, and half the old docs won't be aware of it ...) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> So I guess it boils down to "What does the /usr movearounding gain us", |
| 31 |
> err, what does renaming bits of OpenRC improve? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The best explanations so far I've seen are "it's nicer", "we've already |
| 34 |
> done it" and "eh mate, why not? is groovy" |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>> If Gentoo needs the symlink after it is removed from OpenRc, I think |
| 37 |
>> that is the time we can talk about putting it in gentoo-functions. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Now that is funny, but why move it away just so that users panic and |
| 40 |
> re-add the wrong flavour of it? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Well, progress I guess: If you change enough things in trivial ways you |
| 43 |
> can claim innovation and show a great rate of change ("I'm not dead yet!") |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Maybe we should write another script for OpenRC that, at each boot, |
| 46 |
determines a random location in your filesystem and moves |
| 47 |
/etc/init.d/functions.sh there, but moves it back on system shutdown. It'll |
| 48 |
also go through all scripts that source functions.sh and update them to |
| 49 |
point at the new, random location, each time. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
We'll also need a type of openrc-fsck script that handles cases of unclean |
| 52 |
shutdowns that don't move the file back to /etc (or /lib, or both). |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Now that's innovation! |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Joshua Kinard |
| 58 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
| 59 |
kumba@g.o |
| 60 |
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
| 63 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |
Archives