[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: should openrc be mandatory on all gentoo systems?
From:       Mike Frysinger <vapier () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2011-06-30 22:18:08
Message-ID: BANLkTinOgkdq+cnFawWheXJivz_-P+uMuQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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 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 will default to
>> >> > > on in IUSE. Most people would leave this flag alone, but if
>> >> > > you want to use something like systemd and do not want the
>> >> > > init scripts or the /etc/runlevels directory on your system,
>> >> > > you would just re-emerge openrc with this flag disabled.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > For now this flag will just control init scripts installation,
>> >> > > but I will also look into taking it further and not installing
>> >> > > other parts of openrc, such as binaries, man pages, etc which
>> >> > > are only used if you are working on init scripts.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wouldn't it be better to just leave these people with
>> >> > INSTALL_MASK? USEflag means needless rebuilds just for the
>> >> > benefit of one file.
>> >>
>> >> so you're saying the solution for systemd users is to setup
>> >> INSTALL_MASK and we shouldnt worry about tweaking openrc at all ?
>> >
>> > Have you even heard the word called 'context'? It might be too short
>> > for your taste.
>>
>> perhaps if you focused less on being snarky and more on the thread
>> content, you'd realize that the context here is "providing
>> /etc/init.d/functions.sh support for non-openrc users".   that was the
>> point of William's e-mail that is at the start of this current
>> "context".
>
> And if you focused more on reading what others write, you'd realize
> that the whole citation here mentions only installing init.d scripts
> and /etc/runlevels?

umm, no.  that's actually the opposite of what William said.  the
ultimate direction is exactly as i described, and William is hashing
out different ways to get there.

so yes, focus less on snarky and more on contributing something useful.
-mike


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]