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