1 |
Hello, Martin. |
2 |
|
3 |
On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 22:32:10 -0000, Martin Vaeth wrote: |
4 |
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
5 |
|
6 |
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 16:18:25 -0000, Martin Vaeth wrote: |
7 |
|
8 |
> >> Portage *cannot* know unless you tell it. The way to tell portage that |
9 |
> >> a package is crucial for *you* is to put it into the world file (or |
10 |
> >> into some set which is in your world file). |
11 |
|
12 |
> > OK, so you're clever and you know this. You know to do the |
13 |
> > couter-intuitive thing of putting @system packages into @world. |
14 |
|
15 |
> No, I am doing the intuitive thing, and put *that particular* |
16 |
> service-manager(s) which is crucial for my system in world. |
17 |
|
18 |
You're being clever again and, perhaps unconsciously, being disdainful of |
19 |
the less clever or experienced. It's a reasonable expectation that an |
20 |
operating system won't delete itself. Gentoo doesn't always meet that |
21 |
expectation. You don't seem to see anything wrong with that. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > Less clever people like me follow the handbook, and assume that |
24 |
> > packages in @system are protected. |
25 |
|
26 |
> And they are right to do so. And openrc is not in @system (at least not |
27 |
> in the profile which you have chosen), and certainly the handbook does |
28 |
> not claim the contrary. |
29 |
|
30 |
Now you're getting legalistic. By @system I meant "the operating |
31 |
system", not what some legal text defines it to be. That "the handbook |
32 |
does not claim the contrary" is poor reasoning. If anything surprising |
33 |
and painful is liable to happen, the handbook should explicitly point it |
34 |
out. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Your assumption that all packages which are in stage3 are also in |
37 |
> @system is just plain wrong. It would actually be horrible if that |
38 |
> would be the case. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > Putting init-systems into @world is an unnatural thing to do |
41 |
|
42 |
> No. Putting the packages which *you* want to use into world is |
43 |
> the most natural thing to do. |
44 |
|
45 |
It is unnatural to regard the operating system as a package. It is |
46 |
natural to assume the OS won't delete itself. I'm unaware of any other |
47 |
non-joke OS's which delete themselves without being asked. |
48 |
|
49 |
[ .... ] |
50 |
|
51 |
> > No, I did not make that mistake. |
52 |
|
53 |
> You did. You would have done the same mistake if you would have |
54 |
> emerged systemd with the same profile without putting it into world, |
55 |
> and have configured your boot-loader to always load systemd: |
56 |
> In that case, systemd would be critical to your system and openrc is |
57 |
> completely superfluous. |
58 |
|
59 |
> Why should you expect that systemd will not get removed in the above |
60 |
> situation if you have not put it into world? |
61 |
> And if you do not expect that: Why should you expect that this is |
62 |
> different for openrc? |
63 |
> Well, you do, because you obviously falsely assumed that you are |
64 |
> using an openrc profile or something similar which let openrc |
65 |
> magically make a "special" package for you in contrast to systemd. |
66 |
|
67 |
Now you're trying to win an argument because you know portage etc., |
68 |
better than me. And you're being pedantic and legalistic. Quite simply |
69 |
I expect that an OS, including Gentoo, will not delete itself unless |
70 |
specifically asked by the user. I'm not getting involved in arguments |
71 |
about details. |
72 |
|
73 |
Gentoo is not perfect. |
74 |
|
75 |
[ .... ] |
76 |
|
77 |
> > Fine for a very clever person, not so much for the rest of us. I |
78 |
> > installed my Gentoo in accordance with the handbook (as of 2017), and |
79 |
> > I don't recall any suggestion of putting critical system packages |
80 |
> > into the world file. |
81 |
|
82 |
> I am sure that there is written something that you should put all |
83 |
> packages which you want to use into the world file. And BTW, I am also |
84 |
> sure that there is nothing written like "do not do this for @system |
85 |
> packges". |
86 |
|
87 |
No reasonable user is going to assume the OS will delete itself. Very |
88 |
many will regard the OS as something into which one installs packages, |
89 |
not as a package itself. There was nothing in the handbook to contradict |
90 |
this natural view. |
91 |
|
92 |
[ .... ] |
93 |
|
94 |
> >> Except for the warning that you should read *very carefully* through |
95 |
> >> the list of packages which are going to be removed. |
96 |
|
97 |
> > That looks more like a "cover your backside" warning than a real |
98 |
> > warning |
99 |
|
100 |
> This is gentoo - a distribution which explicitly never hinders you to |
101 |
> shoot yourself in the foot. And you really think that if there is even |
102 |
> an explicit warning you should ignore it? |
103 |
|
104 |
The warning was not very explicit. An explicit warning would have said |
105 |
"--depclean is capable of removing critical system packages". As it |
106 |
happened I didn't ignore the warning. But some people might. |
107 |
|
108 |
You seem to see nothing wrong with an OS being one keypress away from |
109 |
destroying itself. I do. So our discussion is bound to be somewhat at |
110 |
cross purposes. |
111 |
|
112 |
> > - one that transfers the responsibility from the perpetrators of an |
113 |
> > unsafe system to the victims. |
114 |
|
115 |
> Oh, come on: You have misconfigured your system by making wrong |
116 |
> assumptions, and now you call yourself the victim. |
117 |
|
118 |
I did not misconfigure my system. I followed the handbook, which did |
119 |
nothing to correct what you call "wrong assumptions". I am not a victim, |
120 |
thankfully, but might easily have become one. I have taken steps to |
121 |
protect myself in the future. |
122 |
|
123 |
I would like Gentoo to change such that this particular mechanism won't |
124 |
claim any victims in the future. You seem to prefer that there be |
125 |
victims rather than have Gentoo change. |
126 |
|
127 |
> Of course, the person who *configured* the system and decides to |
128 |
> execute a command which clearly penalizes any misconfiguration |
129 |
> is the one who is responsible. |
130 |
|
131 |
I'm glad you're not the person responsible for safety in the place I |
132 |
work. There, specific steps are taken to avoid injury to people who make |
133 |
mistakes. For example, there are bars to prevent people from falling out |
134 |
of windows, there are non-slip floor surfaces, and so on. |
135 |
|
136 |
> > There is no specific warning that --depclean can remove critical |
137 |
> > system files. Probably there should be. |
138 |
|
139 |
> Probably everybody should know that practically *every* package |
140 |
> can be a critical system file - it all depends on your setup. |
141 |
|
142 |
Please don't be like that. You know damn well that only a few packages |
143 |
are critical, in the sense that if they are removed they can't (easily) |
144 |
be brought back again. Games are not critical. Media programs aren't |
145 |
critical. Things like email programs, ssh, web browsers probably aren't |
146 |
critical to most people. The init system, whichever one, is most |
147 |
definitely critical as is the kernel and the boot loader. |
148 |
|
149 |
[ .... ] |
150 |
|
151 |
> .... Exceptions are packages which are absolutely needed for *every* |
152 |
> functioning system and have *no* alternative. .... |
153 |
|
154 |
The init system is absolutely needed for *every* system. That there are |
155 |
alternatives is no excuse for Gentoo to delete it. |
156 |
|
157 |
[ .... ] |
158 |
|
159 |
> > Any system that comes within one keypress of destruction, when the user |
160 |
> > hasn't specifically requested it, is a buggy system. portage is buggy. |
161 |
|
162 |
> alias ls="rm -rf /*" |
163 |
> ls |
164 |
|
165 |
Don't be so silly, please. |
166 |
|
167 |
[ .... ] |
168 |
|
169 |
> > Ordinary users like me wonder what is up on learning that |
170 |
> > portage deletes critical packages (without being asked) under _any_ |
171 |
> > circumstances. |
172 |
|
173 |
> Again, that the package is critical for *your* setup is a |
174 |
> particularity of *your* system. |
175 |
|
176 |
The init system is critical to every system, even yours. Again, Gentoo |
177 |
sometimes deletes the init system, leaving a machine unbootable. You |
178 |
think that's fine. To me, it's unacceptable. |
179 |
|
180 |
I think our discussion has come to its natural end. |
181 |
|
182 |
[ .... ] |
183 |
|
184 |
-- |
185 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |