Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Daniel Campbell (zlg)
On 05/04/2016 04:12 PM, William Hubbs wrote:

> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:41:39PM +1000, Sam Jorna wrote:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2016 10:52 AM, Sam Jorna wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 10:00:05AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2016, Austin English wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your list of affected packages obtained with "git grep" in the
>>>>>>> Portage tree will not be complete, since the command won't catch
>>>>>>> any init scripts installed from elsewhere. You should look for the
>>>>>>> set of installed files instead.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How is that relevant here at all? I'm cleaning up portage installed
>>>>>> init scripts, [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> You are cleaning up only those init scripts that are installed from
>>>>> FILESDIR, but you will miss the ones that are installed from a file
>>>>> in SRC_URI.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps an alternate way to do it would be to have a QA check look at
>>>> any files installed to ${D}etc/init.d/ and throw a warning if their
>>>> shebang is "#!/sbin/runscript"
>>>>
>>>
>>> A repoman check is a much saner approach, I'm not convinced there is
>>> sufficient need for this change to begin with, in particular to start
>>> touching a wide range of packages. Breaking backwards compatibility in
>>> any way should have a darn good reason, and I haven't seen one yet
>>
>> I'm not arguing for or against it in general, just in terms of technical
>> implementation.
>>
>> That being said, a repoman check would only catch those distributed in
>> ${FILESDIR} as well. My thinking with the above was to also identify
>> those installed from distfiles to be handled accordingly.
>
> Actually, you won't need to worry about any qa checks in portage,
> because I am going to put a deprecation warning in OpenRC upstream which
> will be displayed when a service script invokes runscript instructing
> you to convert to openrc-run.
>
> OpenRC will keep runscript, with this warning, for a while.
>
> William
>
This sounds like the most sane approach to me, in conjunction with a
repoman warning or error once OpenRC announces deprecation 'upstream'.

--
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Duncan-42
In reply to this post by Patrick Lauer
Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 09:32:01 +0200 as excerpted:

> So you're saying that a Gentoo-specific change in Gentoo happens because
> the Gentoo maintainer doesn't care about Gentoo? ;)

I'm saying that big-picture, there's more than one distro, and once a
particular package graduates beyond a single distro, as openrc has,
there's likely to be some more or less disruptive changes.

Meanwhile, seems there was another package with a runscript executable
that debian happens to package, proving my point about namespace
collision.  Today that's a problem for debian; tomorrow it could well be
a problem for a would-be gentoo packager (dev or user) of that same
package... if some gentooer out there isn't /already/ having to deal with
the problem.  So it's not just debian openrc is helping here, it's the
entire floss community that may at some point be interested in software
with that same name, including gentoo.

> Somehow I still don't see a *problem* being solved, and the runscript
> binary/symlink pretty much has to stay there indefinitely unless you
> want to make life exciting for people that have their own or adapted
> init scripts.

Many gentoo precedents define your "indefinitely" as "one year at
minimum".  Beyond that, it's (gentoo) maintainer's preference, taking
account of how much of the rest of the tree it still effects, getting
someone to take care of the lagging packages if necessary, etc.  But
while we don't /try/ to break stuff out of the tree, if it's out of tree
and particularly if it's in some user's non-public/non-layman overlay or
simply a script hacked up on their system, we prioritize accordingly, and
yes, we recognize that sometimes that stuff breaks with such changes, but
that's held to be a case of "if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces".

Despite all that, I expect it'll be more like two years' worth as
deprecated but still there, simply for practicality reasons.  Meanwhile,
once the deprecation warning goes in, a year or more is plenty of time to
change things so they'll still work after the deprecation period, and
like I said, while we recognize that some users may not upgrade in in
over a year, that really has been held to be their problem and
responsibility at that point, including if they entirely missed the
deprecation warnings as a result of not upgrading in over a year.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Andreas K. Huettel
In reply to this post by Patrick Lauer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer:

> On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> > On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
> >> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
> >> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.
> >>
> >>
> >> Y'all have too much free time ... ;)
> >
> > I'm inclined to say, that provided there *is* someone doing it .. let
> > them be. Whatever the motives.
>
> This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users
> that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken.
>

So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix with a
single Rex command?

- --

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
[hidden email]
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=Xm9w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Patrick Lauer
On 05/05/2016 08:59 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 09:53:10 schrieb Patrick Lauer:
> > On 05/05/2016 09:44 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> >> On 05/05/16 08:32, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >>> To summarize: Lots of churn, no visible benefit, except that some OCD
> >>> people could feel better: except that we can't actually fix the core
> >>> 'issue' without making lots of other people very sad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Y'all have too much free time ... ;)
> >>
> >> I'm inclined to say, that provided there *is* someone doing it .. let
> >> them be. Whatever the motives.
>
> > This ignores the externalized cost for potentially thousands of users
> > that have to fix stuff because it was actively broken.
>
>
> So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix
> with a
> single Rex command?
>
I like the naive assumption that I only have one central deployment :)

To be honest, I don't know, because I shouldn't have to care ... but
what's a few hours of changing stuff between friends, especially when it
doesn't add any features.





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Andreas K. Huettel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016, 21:40:00 schrieb Patrick Lauer:

> > So how many custom init scripts have you deployed that you can't fix
> > with a
> > single Rex command?
>
> I like the naive assumption that I only have one central deployment :)
>
> To be honest, I don't know, because I shouldn't have to care ... but
> what's a few hours of changing stuff between friends, especially when it
> doesn't add any features.

Well that's why even having an extra overlay is better than adding custom
scripts outside portage... :)

- --

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
[hidden email]
http://www.akhuettel.de/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.1
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=Q848
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Transitioning from #!/sbin/runscript to,#!/sbin/openrc-run

Austin English-2
In reply to this post by Austin English-2
On 05/03/2016 11:27 PM, Austin English wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I've been working on the transition from #!/sbin/runscript to
> #!/sbin/openrc-run [1], by starting on the maintainer-needed packages.
> That's done (aside from some stabilizations needed, but I'll deal with that
> latter). The trouble is that there are roughly 700 packages that need to
> be updated, and that's an insane number of bugs to file.
>
> So, instead, I'm going to give developers to two weeks to update their
> initscripts or ask me not to touch it. On/after 2016/05/18, I'll update
> initscripts/copyrights, but will leave revbumping to maintainer's discretion.
>
> Thanks,
> Austin
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573846
I've updated everything in the tree to use #!/sbin/openrc-run. The
/sbin/runscript symlink still remains for now, don't worry. I plan to
add checks in repoman/qa checks in the near future to prevent the
deprecated shebang from creeping back in.

Maintainers, please revbump your packages at your discretion.

Thanks!
Austin


signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
12