On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:30, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:14 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> > On
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:30:51PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:14 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Gór
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:16:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 17:14, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
>> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:47:42 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so
> > > that the init scripts are optional and whether
Hi Paul and everyone,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04:04AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > Why can't we just split up functions.sh into "/lib/output.sh"
>
> we're not changing the file name
I just made a case on the bug for having a separate
On Jun 30, 2011 11:06 AM, "Mike Frysinger" wrote:
>
> we're not splitting the source trees. the reasons have already been
> detailed in the bug open on the topic.
> -mike
>
I think we're generally aiming for perfection when we should be pragmatic.
The proposed solution isn't ideal, but is workab
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 08:58, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Why can't we just split up functions.sh into "/lib/output.sh"
we're not changing the file name
> containing the init script independent (but often gentoo specific)
> output stuff, and have functions.sh source this. Output.sh would be
> provid
On 30 June 2011 04:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so that the
> > > init scripts are optional and whether or not they
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:19:09 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
> > Ok, the option that I'm looking at now is to set up openrc so that the
> > init scripts are optional and whether or not they are installed is
> > controlled by a use flag which I w
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:46:13 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:56:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > The third option is for openrc to not install the
> > > symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code
2011/6/29 Olivier Crête :
> systemd is where the innovation is today and we, Gentoo,
> should get on board or be left behind.
Certainly agree that systemd is innovative.
I think this whole thing is becoming a bit moot. The openrc
maintainer is already planning to add use flags to allow for clean
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 16:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:14:22 -0400
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
> > managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
> > think, we won't have a choice but
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:14:22 -0400
> Olivier Crête wrote:
>> And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
>> managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
>> think, we won't have a choice but to
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:56:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > The third option is for openrc to not install the
> > symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code is actually at
> > /lib/rc/functions.sh or /libexec/rc/functions
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'm not sure if it is a good idea to source a script mangling PATH
> there.
the mangling makes sure the system paths are present and come first.
it doesnt remove any elements.
it probably could be redone to only prepend elements, but i'm not su
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:38, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and
>> was long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for
>> scripts external to baselayout (as opposed to a p
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> The third option is for openrc to not install the
> symbolic link at /etc/init.d/functions.sh since the code is actually at
> /lib/rc/functions.sh or /libexec/rc/functions.sh on the bsds. If I do
> that in openrc, that would mean that baselay
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:14:22 -0400
Olivier Crête wrote:
> And you also underestimate the amount of momentum that Lennart has
> managed to amass behind systemd. I expect that much sooner than you
> think, we won't have a choice but to switch to systemd as many core
> components will start depending
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:31:43 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 06/29/11 17:14, Olivier Crête wrote:
Stop polluting the thread with $init vs $init2, please.
-Jeremy
On 06/29/11 17:14, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
/lib/rc/functio
On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> >> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
> >>
> >>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:07:52AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
> > >> Honestly, I think a better solution would
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:49:13PM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Срд, 29/06/2011 в 07:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> > > > simply because I wasn't sure
В Срд, 29/06/2011 в 07:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> > > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
> >
> > the file should provide t
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> We tolerate the systemd madness as long as it doesn't interfere with
> other things.
I'd say that "welcome" is a better word than "tolerate" - after all,
Gentoo is about choice. :)
Still, I do agree that we should avoid disruptive changes
On 06/29/2011 05:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
>>> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
>>>
>>> Other init systems,
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:38:45 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last
On 06/29/11 03:07, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
>> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
>> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
>>
>> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
>> r
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and
>>> >> was long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for
>>> >> scripts external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in
>>> >> /sbin/).
> the file should provide the cl
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
>> > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
>>
>> the file should provide the classic
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:47:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Both. There's code in Paludis that duplicates a bunch of that stuff
> > simply because I wasn't sure what I could and couldn't rely upon.
>
> the file should provide the classic e* output funcs that we've all
> grown to love, and are no
probably not worth getting into
-mike
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wr
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:36:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
> >> long ago decided as the canonical public entry p
2011/6/28 Olivier Crête:
> As long as we have Gentoo-style init scripts in the tree, we will need
> these functions to be available. So yes, they should probably be in a
> separate package from openrc itself to ease the transition to the bright
> systemd future.
systemd is limited (acknowledged by
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
>> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
>> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path i
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:12, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:07:52 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> /etc/init.d/functions.sh has existed for the last decade, and was
> long ago decided as the canonical public entry point for scripts
> external to baselayout (as opposed to a path in /sbin/). it isnt
> going anywhere, and painting it as s
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
>> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to prov
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 01:48:16 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
> >> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
> >> function library, independent of OpenRC
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
>> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
>> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
>> scripts of a random package is just br
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 00:04:57 Michał Górny wrote:
> Honestly, I think a better solution would be to provide a convenience
> function library, independent of OpenRC. Sourcing random internal
> scripts of a random package is just broken by concept.
except it hasnt been random and has clearly
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:10:42 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> the reason for this email is
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 and the bugs that
> currently depend on it. I'm sure there will be more of those.
>
> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> /lib/rc/func
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 09:07:12PM -0400, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> > /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
> >
> > Other init systems, like systemd, are c
Hi,
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
> /lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
>
> Other init systems, like systemd, are coming along which completely
> replace sysvinit and do not use openrc's init scrip
All,
the reason for this email is
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 and the bugs that
currently depend on it. I'm sure there will be more of those.
The background is that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is a link to
/lib/rc/functions.sh, which is part of openrc.
Other init systems, like sys
48 matches
Mail list logo
