| 1 |
On 5/25/13 6:48 PM, Micha³ Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 |
| 3 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I'm taking this from https://bugs.gentoo.org/412697 to the dev mailing |
| 6 |
>> list, since this discussion doesn't really belong on bugzilla. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Seems that *upstream* had to a bit of work in order to support the |
| 9 |
various bits of systemd (not just the simple unit apparently) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I can understand there is some hurry so somebody could gloat "and even |
| 12 |
Gentoo/Sabayon supports systemd", yet I wouldn't *rush* things and I |
| 13 |
would consider getting something sorted out sanely for everybody. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I doubt I would be treated that nicely if I start spamming all the |
| 16 |
upstreams about supporting runit and demand they to maintain those init |
| 17 |
rules. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We can be kind with difficult upstreams but just up to a point. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That said, I'd rather have set something along the lines of: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- get the eselect init machinery in place |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
- decide seriously if we want to consider units (and init.d files) as |
| 26 |
manpages and threat them in the same way. This way nosystemd in the |
| 27 |
features would spare you some files as it does for manpages. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- repeat the same treatment for openrc and runit runscripts. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The alternative of having split packages seems a waste of inodes, |
| 32 |
probably in the end having the package manager keep track of this data |
| 33 |
would be better. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
lu |
Archives