On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I have been bumping heads with Mike Frysinger (vapier) on the topic of > >> drop-in config files that are utilized by quite a few system services > >> on Gentoo. For reference, see bug 544150. > > > > > > I am going to the movies with Mike tomorrow, I will be sure to cuddle > him on > > your behalf. > > Thanks? ^_^ > Free cuddles for everyone! > > >> > >> > >> Mike claims that Gentoo has a policy of "not enabling anything by > >> default", and that this policy applies to both init scripts, and > >> drop-in configuration files. > > > > > > I would say the policy for *services* is that non-critical services are > not > > enabled by default. I would argue that is a policy decision that is > distro > > wide. > > Maintainers are of course, at liberty to determine if their service is > > 'critical' or not. > > Right, I agree that this makes sense for services. > > But I don't really think the configuration fragments I am referring to > could really be called "services". However, they do affect the > operation of services. > > Should packages be allow to set/alter the configuration of a system > service automatically? I would say yes, and it is up to the maintainer > to decide what is reasonable here. > Personally I'm with Vapier that this is a Bad Idea(TM) for the reasons he stated; but I'm unsure we have "A Policy Against It" It seems like something one might offer an eselect module for though. > > >> My questions to the community: > >> > >> - Do we have a policy regarding enablement of drop-in config files? > > > > > > Maintainers discretion. > > > >> > >> - If so, what is it? Where is it documented? > > > > > > My brain; seriously though, generally undocumented things imply > maintainers > > discretion. > > We either have a policy that the maintainer is supposed to follow > (barring some reasonable exception), or we don't have a policy and the > maintainer can do what they want. > > In the referenced bug, I'm being told that an existing policy applies > here and that a bunch of existing packages violate this policy; I'm > trying to verify if that is the case, and if so, what is the policy, > and how is it applicable? > I think that is a question for Mike, if he can't reference a written policy; he is probably SOL :) -A
