Hello, Rich. On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 15:54:25 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 2:05 PM Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote:
> > OK, so you're clever and you know this. You know to do the > > couter-intuitive thing of putting @system packages into @world. Less > > clever people like me follow the handbook, and assume that packages in > > @system are protected. Putting init-systems into @world is an unnatural > > thing to do, and must be construed as a workaround for deficiencies in > > portage. > I think you're really conflating the package manager with how some > virtuals/ebuilds are configured. Portage shouldn't have > service-manager-specific functionality. Nor should it do things like > never uninstall things that packages say aren't needed just in case > you might still be using them, when you run it with --depclean which > basically is supposed to have it remove the stuff that isn't needed. I don't think portage should ever uninstall the active init system, or other crucial parts of the system, unless explicitly requested by the user. I think that would be poor design if it were deliberate. People make mistakes, and systems should take that into account. > All protage does is follow the dependencies. > I think there is room for discussing whether daemontools should be > treated as a service manager by default. I've never used it and can't > speak to how it is typically used. You might want to talk to the > maintainers of it to get their thoughts. How would I track down the Gentoo maintainer? > > No, I did not make that mistake. I simply assumed, not entirely > > consciously, that Gentoo would not destroy my system without me > > specifically asking it to. > It isn't like uninstalling openrc is going to "destroy your system". > Worst case you could always just pass init=/bin/bash or whatever to > the kernel and just reinstall it. Granted, it wouldn't really be > welcome behavior. > > It would be saner still to be kept in the system file (whatever that > > might be). > I suppose you might not care to hear that I've advocated a few times > that the "system file" should disappear entirely and no packages > should get special treatment. :) Granted, that has more to do with > how assumed dependencies work in the repository. I don't really have > a problem with confirmation before removing certain packages because > reinstalling them can be quite painful. The service manager actually > is one of the easier ones to fix. If you break the ability to > bootstrap gcc/etc that can be a real bugger to fix. :-) I suppose I'd be in favour of some sort of "are you really sure?" protections for things like gcc and python, too. > Really though posting on this list and successfully winning every > argument with everybody who replies .... It's clear that that's not going to happen. ;-) > .... is going to do zero to change this behavior, because it is > unlikely that anybody involved in this particular issue reads this > list. It would make more sense to chat with the daemontools > maintainer and get their thoughts on how the virtual ought to be > configured as a starting point. You could always try for a second > opinion/etc if that doesn't work. Plus the conversation would > probably help you understand what their thinking was. That's an excellent idea. This feature is not going to hurt me any more, because I know about it now. I'm concerned it could hurt other people in the future. > -- > Rich -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
