On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:10:16PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 11/03/14 02:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> Dnia 2014-03-10, o godz. 18:30:29 William Hubbs > >> <willi...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >> > >>> Also, do not add hard dependencies to your packages on > >>> gentoo-functions. The goal is to add gentoo-functions to > >>> @system once it is stable. > >> > >> Why? I'm pretty sure we were working on having more explicit > >> deps and less @system magic. This goes exactly the opposite way. > > > > ++ > > > > ++ , it makes no sense to not explicitly depend on this, when a > package needs it. That's one of the reasons why things that use > functions.sh now fail when openrc wassn't installed (openrc being the > provider, until now).
We can go that route, then not bother adding it to @system at all. I was just thinking that it will be needed everywhere, and since it is, it would be a good candidate for @system. > > Why not install it in the same place as openrc, create a virtual, > > and have the two block? Or move the file from openrc to the new > > package and have openrc depend on it (probably a cleaner solution > > if you can handle the transition)? > > Eww, no. This is a bash script; the C internal functions that are in > openrc already are way better for openrc to use. However, yes, both > of these packages should be able to be installed at the same time. Also, if we want to make systems completely clean for folks who aren't using OpenRc, we shouldn't put anything in /etc/init.d besides init scripts. That way, someone can add /etc/init.d and possibly /etc/conf.d to INSTALL_MASK and have a clean setup without OpenRc. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
