| 1 |
On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> All, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to |
| 5 |
> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell, |
| 6 |
> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be |
| 9 |
> unique. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so |
| 12 |
> should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it |
| 13 |
> and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is |
| 14 |
> released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new |
| 15 |
> release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I'm not sure what else will break. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I |
| 20 |
> make the changes upstream and have people let us know what |
| 21 |
> else breaks? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> William |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 |
| 26 |
The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the |
| 27 |
context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc |
| 28 |
-> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that |
| 29 |
change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild |
| 30 |
rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over |
| 31 |
and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, |
| 32 |
and it beats a ton of broken systems. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Chris Reffett |
Archives