On 04.05.2016 14:54, Manuel Rüger wrote: > On 04.05.2016 11:19, Duncan wrote: >> Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 04 May 2016 10:00:05 +0200 as excerpted: >> >>>>>>>> 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. >> >> While you are correct, the current problem isn't lack of low hanging >> fruit to fix in the files dir, as he said there's 700 packages on the >> list already, too many to file individual bugs for. >> >> So while it is indeed worthwhile to keep in mind the init-scripts >> installed from SRC_URI... >> >> There's seven hundred "miles of open road" to cross before we have to >> worry about that SRC_URI bridge, so maybe worry about that when we're >> within 50 or 100, or even a couple hundred, "miles", not 700. =:^] >> > > Hi Austin, > > to be honest, I'm not too happy with the fixes you applied. > Although it's just a tiny change, I'd rather have expected a revision > bump to the ebuilds and a revision bump to the init files themselves > than just a in-file rewrite. > Your fix changes the content of files that are installed to ones system. > Such a change usually requires a revbump. > > > Cheers, > > Manuel > > Nevermind, I didn't see the follow-up commit in which you removed the old revision.
Cheers, Manuel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
