| 1 |
On Monday 08 June 2009 20:44:35 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 07:42:17PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > One of the reasons to move stuff OUT of /lib are all the profiles where |
| 4 |
> > > SYMLINK_LIB is disabled AND LIBDIR_${arch} != "lib". On non-multilib |
| 5 |
> > > systems (so there is no lib23/64) or multilib systems where /lib is the |
| 6 |
> > > correct location, then any test against /lib/rc/version would be fine. |
| 7 |
> > > On anything else, it's not. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Having it in a different location from upstream (OpenRC), means that |
| 10 |
> > > any other distributions using OpenRC's /libexec/rc/version location |
| 11 |
> > > would need to patch all their init.d scripts. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > the proposed /sbin/functions.sh check would makes this issue moot |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And why the hell didn't you come forward on bug 270646 with this? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
i'm busy, deal |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I'm concerned that absence tests like that will not be as useful as |
| 20 |
> OpenRC spreads. Sure in Gentoo, baselayout1 provides /sbin/functions.sh, |
| 21 |
> but other users won't. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
i dont see how that is relevant. we only care about Gentoo here. plus, the |
| 24 |
test is: if /sbin/functions.sh exists, it's baselayout-1 (which no one else |
| 25 |
outside of Gentoo will be using), otherwise it's openrc. once we toss |
| 26 |
baselayout-1, there is no test as everything requires openrc. |
| 27 |
-mike |
Archives