| 1 |
On 05/04/2016 01:02 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/04/2016 06:27 AM, Austin English wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi there, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to |
| 6 |
>> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], |
| 7 |
> ... and once more I have to ask: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Is there any reason that Stuff Needs To Change because of a packaging |
| 10 |
> conflict in *debian* where it really doesn't matter at all for us? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I mean, ok, it's your time, do what you want, but I'm still confused |
| 13 |
> about the benefits of this change ... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
OpenRC isn't exclusive to Gentoo. Why should we use the generic #!bin/sh |
| 16 |
when we usually intend #!/bin/bash? Because being explicit is nice |
| 17 |
instead of relying on implementation details. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Additionally, you know, it helps the wider open source community. Most |
| 20 |
would call that a beneficial thing. You're welcome to your own opinion. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Regardless, if you have a a technical objection rather than an objection |
| 23 |
to following upstream's recommendations, I'm listening. |
| 24 |
>> by starting on the maintainer-needed packages. |
| 25 |
>> That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that |
| 26 |
>> latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to |
| 27 |
>> be updated, and that's an insane number of bugs to file. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> So, instead, I'm going to give developers to two weeks to update their |
| 30 |
>> initscripts or ask me not to touch it. On/after 2016/05/18, I'll update |
| 31 |
>> initscripts/copyrights, but will leave revbumping to maintainer's discretion. |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>> Thanks, |
| 34 |
>> Austin |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846 |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> |
Archives