Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, > or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: > > What problem is being solved here?
For one thing, the namespace issue of runscript being generic, while openrc-run is properly namespaced and thus much less likely to conflict with anything else. That would be why openrc's upstream maintainer is changing the name, with appropriate deprecation notice for the old one. Given that, what gentoo has to decide is how it's going to respond to that. Sure, we /could/ rename the executable to runscript here and be done with it, but that would violate gentoo's policy of defaulting to consistency with upstream unless there's a very good reason not to. The fact that the packages upstream maintainer happens to be a gentoo dev and that gentoo happens to host the project and be its primary testing ground and user base shouldn't change that. Of course if upstream policy is thought by devs willing to do the work to be irrational, they can of course fork the package. There's certainly precedent for that. But someone's gotta be willing to do the work necessary to create and maintain that fork, so... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
