On 05/05/16 08:17, Duncan wrote: > Patrick Lauer posted on Thu, 05 May 2016 07:13:00 +0200 as excerpted: > >> So again, because I feel like either I'm too stupid to understand this, >> or too smart to let such an obviously bad idea continue: >> >> What problem is being solved here? > For one thing, the namespace issue of runscript being generic, while > openrc-run is properly namespaced and thus much less likely to conflict > with anything else. > > That would be why openrc's upstream maintainer is changing the name, with > appropriate deprecation notice for the old one. Given that, what gentoo > has to decide is how it's going to respond to that. Sure, we /could/ > rename the executable to runscript here and be done with it, but that > would violate gentoo's policy of defaulting to consistency with upstream > unless there's a very good reason not to. > > The fact that the packages upstream maintainer happens to be a gentoo dev > and that gentoo happens to host the project and be its primary testing > ground and user base shouldn't change that. > > Of course if upstream policy is thought by devs willing to do the work to > be irrational, they can of course fork the package. There's certainly > precedent for that. But someone's gotta be willing to do the work > necessary to create and maintain that fork, so... > +1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
