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 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 been defined by having
> > > existed since the beginning of Gentoo
> > 
> > I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
> 
> /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 
> something in flux at this point is disingenuous.

I never said that /etc/init.d/functions.sh should go anywhere.

I guess I'm just questioning why core functionality for our distribution
is part of an optional package. Yes, OpenRC is our default init system,
but it is optional.

If I put a separate package in portage, say called gentoo-core that has
only the core functions, openrc and gentoo-core would have to block each
other and  packages that need the core functionality would have to
depend on || ( sys-apps/openrc sys-apps/gentoo-core ).

If I use a use flag for openrc (I'm thinking about core or minimal) to
build only the necessary parts of it, that leaves these packages
depending on sys-apps/openrc and the user controling the use flag.

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 baselayout or another package
 would have to provide either a symbolic link in
 /etc/init.d/functions.sh or a script there that provided the functions
 if openrc was not available.

 Thoughts?

 William

Attachment: pgpwUtuOiFuBS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to