Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Daniel Campbell
On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then working together becomes quite

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation or a wrapper such as our gcc one. I like better the latter since it is overall safer.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500 Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote: On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd integration and we were

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:53:21 -0400 Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd integration and we were getting there with the idea of INSTALL_MASK. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Ben de Groot
On 26 May 2013 02:13, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then working together becomes quite difficult. In this case I opted to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Ben de Groot
On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of boycott attitudes should stop in favor of common sense. Common sense would be to recognize that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: On 05/25/2013 02:13 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/25/2013 05:14 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: But if a co-maintainer pushes through a change that I oppose, then working

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Ben de Groot
On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: Unless I am mistaken, we did NOT agree anywhere that Gentoo maintainers MUST add systemd support when upstream does not ship such files. We did agree that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Daniel Campbell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/26/2013 01:55 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 01:24:03 -0500 Daniel Campbell dlcampb...@gmx.com wrote: On 05/25/2013 02:53 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:15 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of boycott attitudes should stop in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 09:22 +0200, Tiziano Müller escribió: [...] Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting out? I can't support this initiative without such a solution and I would be happy to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test.

[gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization, extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of that. Systemd upstream developers have made it abundantly clear they are not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:18 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 26 May 2013 01:00, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote: We can now have long discussions about upstream decisions, how to handle devrel problems... but I think it's much more easy: this kind of boycott attitudes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 26 May 2013 00:48, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On the other hand, we also agreed that they shouldn't refuse unit files if anyone else does the work for them. Where is this policy documented? Nowhere,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:22:05 +0200 Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote: Am Samstag, den 25.05.2013, 15:53 -0400 schrieb Anthony G. Basile: We are moving too quickly on bug #448882 ([Tracker] packages not providing systemd units). We should come to better consensus on systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 15:23 +0800, Ben de Groot escribió: [...] But it isn't even like that. I'm not taking away anyone's freedom to use systemd. You are doing as you are forcing them to have a semi-usable setup when merging packages. You can do so if you wish. You can add unit files to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Pacho Ramos
El dom, 26-05-2013 a las 08:55 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: [...] As far as resisting systemd, why is that so bad? Vertical integration is generally a bad idea with the sole exception of when your use case(s) line up perfectly with the ivory tower and you need all of the offered features.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Ben de Groot
On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:14:36 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: Systemd is diametrically opposed to the FreeBSD, customization, extreme configurability, and top-notch developer community aspects of that. Systemd upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:52:28 -0400 Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 01:57:39PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote It has to be done *VERY* early at boot, or else we're back to the problem you described above. Not sure what you mean with very early, you don't really have

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 04:02:56 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: By take effect I mean that the filesystem should be modified in such a way that the next boot will use what I selected. No further action which could fail should be required beyond the eselect command. Unless the eselect

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Robert David
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:43:32 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation or a

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:43:32 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: Increased complexity is never safer. And a wrapper means the additional complexity gets there every boot. And considering how the discussion goes, the wrapper will grow openrc-size in a few months.. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Robert David
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20:25 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:43:32 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20:25 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: It is *easy*. ln -s /sbin/newinit /sbin/init.new mv /sbin/init.new /sbin/init Easy and atomic. The inconsistency potential is similar to one given by init upgrades. Yet we don't do anything magical to defer init

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that hard*. Actually, a method similar to one used in oldnet would simply work. That is, symlinking

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top priority) should be either a symlink to the actual implementation or a wrapper such as our gcc one. I like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: As in, say, lastrite GNOME and tell users to switch to other distro? Or maybe everything using udev? Sounds much like the way to get the 'one distro' dream some people have. But wasn't the intent opposite? eudev was made on purpose to let people avoid

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Robert David
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:21:25 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: Increased complexity is never safer. And a wrapper means the additional complexity gets there every boot. And considering how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: Where is this policy documented? Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late thread, looked common sense enough to me. If it is to be

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why it would be bad. The point is somewhere else. I really dont know how many user will switch inits and how many of them will do this regularly.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Robert David
On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Considering the design of OpenRC itself, it wouldn't be *that hard*. Actually, a

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Rich Freeman schrieb: Granted, I don't know the limitations of the EFI bootloaders that are out there, but this still seems like something better solved via grub configuration. When I implemented systemd in one of my VMs I just added a grub line to boot back to openrc. EFI stub kernels just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 9:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could have. But the unit file format is, er, good enough -- and has the advantage of eventually taking a lot of work

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which It doesn't need to, it just needs to kick off the right init process. If you think it does need to, please elaborate. and worst case switch inittab.

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default with top priority) should be either a

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:45:38 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:20:25 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: It is *easy*. ln -s /sbin/newinit /sbin/init.new mv /sbin/init.new /sbin/init Easy and atomic. The inconsistency potential is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 26 May 2013 15:37, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Init.d scripts are just shell scripts. All somebody needs to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:23:51 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5/26/13 9:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: By the way, we should really keep the separation between systemd itself and the unit files. I agree that systemd is not the best thing we could have. But the unit file format

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread hasufell
On 05/26/2013 12:11 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: That means that this whole thing only impacts those who install it, which is the best way to implement something experimental in the first place. +1 I and probably a lot of other people have zero interest in this approach, so we should not be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd (was: Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697))

2013-05-26 Thread Robert David
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:31:25 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:49 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 05:49:48 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Ben de Groot

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:55:24 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5/26/13 8:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:54:48 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: - /sbin/init (or whatever linux currently calls by default

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 1:31 PM, Robert David wrote: Come on, it is 2013, wasting few inodes. I did not got these problems in the old good times with my 386 with 4mb ram and few MB hdd. Those with embedded system will mask many other files, not only systemd units (so they save one inode more with my

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:09:21 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Easy isn't always good. It's not atomic since you can't reboot and because of that I wouldn't call it smooth either. Can't you? How come? Because it expects the init system you boot with to be present. I think

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 1:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd suspect this is mostly with the growing irritation of systemd haters who spawn endless threads about how they hate anything with 'systemd' name in it. Plus the people who try hard to port the mistakes of OpenRC init scripts to systemd services files.

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper code. I can hardly even express this in words. It doesn't need to be in the wrapper, inittab is something read at boot only as far as I am aware and

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:45:43 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:09:21 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Easy isn't always good. It's not atomic since you can't reboot and because of that I wouldn't call it smooth either. Can't you? How come?

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:40:03 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote: Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper code. I can hardly even express this in words. I need it for my purpose, bb-init syntax isn't the same

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:01:19 +0200 Robert David robert.david.pub...@gmail.com wrote: Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why it would be bad. That's what I'd like to know from him, I was quoting both of you, I really dont know how many user will switch inits and

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 2:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote: You could've asked me that when I was still using OpenRC. I don't really want to grep the 40 scripts right now, and I don't think I have the worse cases installed here. Worth investigation, not by you, but those that loathe systemd should have a look

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread J. Roeleveld
On Sat, May 25, 2013 21:55, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:09:47 +0200 J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: How will the stop/start part of services/init-scripts/... be done? Not sure what you mean here; if you keep init function the same as the init you boot with, this should

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:55:20 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:09:47 +0200 J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: +1 for wrapper, from my understanding, symlinks for init-systems can't be altered on a running system without risking strange behaviour.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

2013-05-26 Thread Sergei Trofimovich
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:59:34 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5/26/13 1:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: I'd suspect this is mostly with the growing irritation of systemd haters who spawn endless threads about how they hate anything with 'systemd' name in it. Plus the people who

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:59:28 +0200 J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: As an example. Lets say I want to test a new init-system. [SNIP] If I then, accidentally, type /etc/init.d/xyz start when xyz hasn't been started by any means yet. What will happen? I would assume that openrc will try

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:26 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Cc: tom...@gentoo.org Please don't CC me, this causes duplicate mails; one of both does not include reply-to. Nobody else that has responded to me did this before. Unless you can give me an awesome procmail rule to

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/05/13 03:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: On 05/25/13 05:25, Peter Stuge wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: - init gets effectively switched only at boot/reboot Please not on reboot, because an unclean shutdown shouldn't leave the system in limbo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Reusing systemd unit file format / forking systemd

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 3:35 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:59:34 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: You need to name a unit with @ suffix, like openvpn@.service: $ cat /etc/systemd/system/openvpn@.service [Service] Type=simple ExecStart=/usr/sbin/openvpn

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:15:26 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Cc: tom...@gentoo.org Please don't CC me, this causes duplicate mails; one of both does not include reply-to. Nobody else that has responded to me

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 1:58 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper code. I can hardly even express this in words. It doesn't need to be in the wrapper, inittab is something

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 26/05/13 07:40 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: On 5/26/13 12:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote: You are telling me that a wrapper, a thing that gets executed *every* boot needs to do some random magic to know which init system was in use and which one is

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 26/05/13 08:59 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 21:55, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:09:47 +0200 J. Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: How will the stop/start part of services/init-scripts/... be done? Not sure

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Ben de Groot
On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: Where is this policy documented? Nowhere, I think. I've seen it coming in the late

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:52:27 +0200 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: On 5/26/13 1:58 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:57:42 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: Switch inittab? Now you added really dangerous behavior to the wrapper code. I can hardly even

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/26/2013 11:21 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: On 26 May 2013 18:04, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:23:44 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which and worst case switch inittab. Please explain why this wrapper would need to switch inittab. Inittab is only used by sysvinit and has no uses in any other init

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:41:06AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which and worst case switch inittab. Please explain why this wrapper would need to switch inittab.

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:48:30 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:41:06AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Openrc is small, but the wrapper really needs to know which is which and worst case

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Matt Turner
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina zeroch...@gentoo.org wrote: Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file, added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs? Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat? It would seem to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going against co-maintainer's wishes (ref. bug 412697)

2013-05-26 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Sonntag, 26. Mai 2013, 18:15:46 schrieb Rick Zero_Chaos Farina: Perhaps this was covered already, but how exactly did this one file, added by your co-maintainer, hurt you? Did it cause additional bugs? Did it break a working ebuild? Did it kill your cat? +1 -- Andreas K. Huettel

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 06:55:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:48:30 -0500 William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:41:06AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:55:24AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: Openrc is small, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/27/13 12:58 AM, William Hubbs wrote: From what I just read, the difference is that busybox init ignores the runlevels specified in sysvinit inittab. Nope, it interprets the numbers in a different way. If that's the only difference, do we really need to modify the inittab at all? Yes,

Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init

2013-05-26 Thread Luca Barbato
On 5/26/13 4:13 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 25/05/13 03:08 PM, Matthew Thode wrote: On 05/25/13 05:25, Peter Stuge wrote: Luca Barbato wrote: - init gets effectively switched only at boot/reboot Please not on reboot, because an unclean

[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2013-05-26 23h59 UTC

2013-05-26 Thread Robin H. Johnson
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2013-05-26 23h59 UTC. Removals: net-im/ktp-contact-applet 2013-05-21 18:29:14 johu net-im/ktp-presence-applet 2013-05-21 18:30:43 johu games-action/heavygear2