On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote:
>> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
>> unique.
> orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/12/13 13:31, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> orc is dev-lang/orc, with binaries like orc-bugreport
That's fine. There is no binary, orc.
> as said, with tab completion, orc-* would just get mixed up with
> binaries from dev-lang/orc
Tab-completing
On 12/12/13 17:46, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> > My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
> > unique.
> orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow
> mascot).
>
orc is dev-lang/orc, with binaries like or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
> unique.
orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow
mascot).
On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote:> On Wed, D
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:41:10AM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
> > which has a binary n
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ...
>
Sure they do. They declare wants, after, wantedby, etc. Looking in
my /usr/lib/systemd/system it seems like all the units I looked at
declared their dependencies. I don'
On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
which we ship as app-shells/rc and rename 'rc' to 'rcsh'
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
>> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
>> which has a binary named "rc" as
On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
>> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the
>> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc ->
>> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and maki
On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
>
> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", s
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path
> for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately.
> I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename "rc" to "openrc" in
> their openrc package just b
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the
> context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc ->
> openrc and symlinking rc -> openrc and making a release with that change
> concurrent with a
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +, Markos Chandras wrote:
> If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path
> for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately.
Awesome. Great to hear it!
> I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename "rc" to "openrc" in
On 12/11/2013 08:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>
> [I'm not the OpenRC maintainer, I'm only on gentoo-devel because I'm
> generally interested, and I saw this, I'm not speaking for zigo or
> anything here.]
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Chris Reffett wrote:
>>The idea of ru
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> > a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
> > which
[I'm not the OpenRC maintainer, I'm only on gentoo-devel because I'm
generally interested, and I saw this, I'm not speaking for zigo or
anything here.]
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Chris Reffett wrote:
>The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the
>
On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
>> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
>> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
>>
On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
>
> My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", sinc
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> All,
>
> We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
> a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
> which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
>
> My thought is to rename our "rc" to
All,
We got a request from Debian to rename the "rc" binary of OpenRC due to
a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the at&t plan 9 shell,
which has a binary named "rc" as well[1].
My thought is to rename our "rc" to "openrc", since that would be
unique.
I know at least one thing that
21 matches
Mail list logo
