On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the
> >>>> Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch
> >>>> any init scripts installed from elsewhere. You should look for the
> >>>> set of installed files instead.
> >>
> >>> How is that relevant here at all? I'm cleaning up portage installed
> >>> init scripts, [...]
> >>
> >> You are cleaning up only those init scripts that are installed from
> >> FILESDIR, but you will miss the ones that are installed from a file
> >> in SRC_URI.
> >
> > Perhaps an alternate way to do it would be to have a QA check look at
> > any files installed to ${D}etc/init.d/ and throw a warning if their
> > shebang is "#!/sbin/runscript"
> >
>
> A repoman check is a much saner approach, I'm not convinced there is
> sufficient need for this change to begin with, in particular to start
> touching a wide range of packages. Breaking backwards compatibility in
> any way should have a darn good reason, and I haven't seen one yet
I'm not arguing for or against it in general, just in terms of technical
implementation.
That being said, a repoman check would only catch those distributed in
${FILESDIR} as well. My thinking with the above was to also identify
those installed from distfiles to be handled accordingly.
--
Sam Jorna (wraeth)
GnuPG Key: D6180C26
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
