On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well what do you know?! Alternative to monolithic stack solutions now exist > as alternatives for other distros too: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/archopenrc/ > > PS. I do not wish to kick off a flame war on this topic, enough electrons have > been wasted in past rants. Just to inform those who may be interested in > this.
Interesting. It looks like they bundle all their openrc scripts in the openrc package. I was curious about this since the right place to put scripts is one of those things that tends to come up in debate. In Gentoo openrc, systemd, and anything else keep their scripts in the packages they go with. Pros: - You don't end up with scripts for packages you don't use. - The openrc/systemd/runit/upstart/etc packages don't get bumped 3 times per week when any script changes anywhere (IMO the biggest driver) - If upstream provides the scripts (common for systemd, less so for openrc but it may happen) then make install can take care of them Cons: - You do end up with scripts for service managers you don't use (assuming you don't mask them). - Individual package maintainers have to be at least somewhat concerned with these scripts even if they don't use the service manager they apply to. I think the Gentoo way is better because of the elimination of bumps. However, Arch is much more strongly in the systemd camp (as I understand it), so I suspect there would be more resistance there to maintaining openrc scripts inside individual packages. So, openrc ended up having to bundle them all in one package. The Gentoo approach took a Council decision as some package maintainers objected to the inclusion of systemd units. Other than the initial debate IMO it has gone smoothly since. And a parting bit of trivia: The overwhelming majority of Gentoo-based installations use upstart as their service manager, despite it not even being in the Gentoo repository. -- Rich
