On 05/05/16 08:53, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users > that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken. > To quote an old proverb .. "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" .. if you wish me to explain, I'll do it privately ;)
I don't think anyone (gentoo-wide) is out to make users life difficult, or make significant work for the precious few package maintainers there are. There will always be a certain amount of 'change for change's sake' and whilst there may not always be a direct benefit, there are often desirable side-effects. I'm not saying this is necessarily a case in point, though. I hear the arguments that we are upholding upstream's progression, and I think that remains one of Gentoo's overriding goals. Sure if its really a problem for you, fork openrc, maintain it or leave it to bit-rot if you really think that 'runscript' is the only way to start services. We/I can't get inside the maintainers head (and wouldn't wish to .. mine is spaghetti enough already, tyvm!) but rest assured I don't think this is a debian/fedora/systemd/<insert-your-personal-distaste-here> issue, and I think we should just let them get on with it, and be grateful we have been warned, and this isn't an epic surprise that will generate a whole stack of reverts down-the-line where someone hasn't done a reasonable impact assessment of their change... ok, that's $2 now .. I'll shut up .. I got Real Work to do too ...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
