| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> |
| 7 |
> wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Hi all, |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> I have been bumping heads with Mike Frysinger (vapier) on the topic of |
| 12 |
> >> drop-in config files that are utilized by quite a few system services |
| 13 |
> >> on Gentoo. For reference, see bug 544150. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I am going to the movies with Mike tomorrow, I will be sure to cuddle |
| 17 |
> him on |
| 18 |
> > your behalf. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Thanks? ^_^ |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Free cuddles for everyone! |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> >> |
| 28 |
> >> |
| 29 |
> >> Mike claims that Gentoo has a policy of "not enabling anything by |
| 30 |
> >> default", and that this policy applies to both init scripts, and |
| 31 |
> >> drop-in configuration files. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > I would say the policy for *services* is that non-critical services are |
| 35 |
> not |
| 36 |
> > enabled by default. I would argue that is a policy decision that is |
| 37 |
> distro |
| 38 |
> > wide. |
| 39 |
> > Maintainers are of course, at liberty to determine if their service is |
| 40 |
> > 'critical' or not. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Right, I agree that this makes sense for services. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> But I don't really think the configuration fragments I am referring to |
| 45 |
> could really be called "services". However, they do affect the |
| 46 |
> operation of services. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Should packages be allow to set/alter the configuration of a system |
| 49 |
> service automatically? I would say yes, and it is up to the maintainer |
| 50 |
> to decide what is reasonable here. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Personally I'm with Vapier that this is a Bad Idea(TM) for the reasons he |
| 54 |
stated; but I'm unsure we have "A Policy Against It" |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
It seems like something one might offer an eselect module for though. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> >> My questions to the community: |
| 61 |
> >> |
| 62 |
> >> - Do we have a policy regarding enablement of drop-in config files? |
| 63 |
> > |
| 64 |
> > |
| 65 |
> > Maintainers discretion. |
| 66 |
> > |
| 67 |
> >> |
| 68 |
> >> - If so, what is it? Where is it documented? |
| 69 |
> > |
| 70 |
> > |
| 71 |
> > My brain; seriously though, generally undocumented things imply |
| 72 |
> maintainers |
| 73 |
> > discretion. |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> We either have a policy that the maintainer is supposed to follow |
| 76 |
> (barring some reasonable exception), or we don't have a policy and the |
| 77 |
> maintainer can do what they want. |
| 78 |
> |
| 79 |
> In the referenced bug, I'm being told that an existing policy applies |
| 80 |
> here and that a bunch of existing packages violate this policy; I'm |
| 81 |
> trying to verify if that is the case, and if so, what is the policy, |
| 82 |
> and how is it applicable? |
| 83 |
> |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
I think that is a question for Mike, if he can't reference a written |
| 86 |
policy; he is probably SOL :) |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
-A |
Archives