Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 12/12/13 17:46, Alexander Berntsen wrote: On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow mascot). orc is dev-lang/orc, with binaries like orc-bugreport On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? No, there isn't a need for that, just rc. Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related executables, just like with rc now. as said, with tab completion, orc-* would just get mixed up with binaries from dev-lang/orc
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 13/12/13 13:31, Samuli Suominen wrote: orc is dev-lang/orc, with binaries like orc-bugreport That's fine. There is no binary, orc. as said, with tab completion, orc-* would just get mixed up with binaries from dev-lang/orc Tab-completing orc- will only have one executable not related to openrc. If you tab-complete open (which is already longer to type) on most systems, you get a lot more. So you'd have to tab-complete openrc. That's a lot longer than orc-. Also, I would just tab-complete orc. orcc is obviously a compiler. Most people have rcc (also obviously a compiler) on their system, so we have that issue now as well. So to sum up: I still think it's fine to call it orc. But honestly, there are no catastrophic candidates. Any further discussion is mostly just bikeshedding. Let's just nominate some candidates and vote. :-) - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlKrDBYACgkQRtClrXBQc7XK1gEArFhx0BE2eELesWVQ1p0KyxKC TEkWlaqZZsxhvSTHf5cA/2jlE5QcODLk765pbmppIB/aw32BfVYSNxUHXssY4tsx =iAkb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow mascot). On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? No, there isn't a need for that, just rc. Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related executables, just like with rc now. That makes no sense; there is almost no reason to manually invoke the rc binary currently, an Gentoo users are already familiar with names like rc-update and service. Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason.
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Alexander Berntsen alexan...@plaimi.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow mascot). On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? No, there isn't a need for that, just rc. Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related executables, just like with rc now. That makes no sense; there is almost no reason to manually invoke the rc binary currently, an Gentoo users are already familiar with names like rc-update and service. There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should be changing runlevels. Renaming everything just forces users to learn new command names for no reason. Right, there is no reason to rename everything. In git, what I've done is rename rc to openrc and provide rc as a backward compatibility symlink. I agree with the comment earlier in the thread; debating the name is just bikeshedding. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ... Sure they do. They declare wants, after, wantedby, etc. Looking in my /usr/lib/systemd/system it seems like all the units I looked at declared their dependencies. I don't know how systemd could do parallel service startup otherwise. Of course, the challenge will be that those dependencies are against other systemd units/targets/etc and not against openrc scripts. For the standards stuff you could translate, or perhaps even create virtual services as a translation layer. Also, systemd dependencies could be against sockets vs full services, so again that is a translation challenge (though openrc could still wait until the full service is launched and not manage sockets). I'm just thinking that in the long term it seems likely that upstream will be supplying working systemd units, and fairly unlikely to supply working openrc scripts. If there is a shift of devs towards running systemd that could translate into daemons in the tree that don't have openrc scripts but do have systemd units. A compatibility layer would make that less of an issue. However, just as devs and users frequently submit systemd units for packages that don't have them, I'm sure that the same will happen for packages that lack openrc scripts. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:41:10AM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. which we ship as app-shells/rc and rename 'rc' to 'rcsh' for unique name just saying This is a separate topic, but maybe we should stop renaming it after a transition period. I am not comfortable with renaming upstream binaries at the distro level. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/12/13 21:41, William Hubbs wrote: My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. orc is shorter and more punny (nice excuse for designing an orcish cow mascot). On 11/12/13 22:04, William Hubbs wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? No, there isn't a need for that, just rc. Please rename all of them, to provide uniform naming. This way, typing orc, and tab-tabing in BASH will give you a list of orc-related executables, just like with rc now. - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlKp2lcACgkQRtClrXBQc7XnwgEAsA4Z7Zgw351tyP9QfbVqOPK6 KYXCvKXqqJGpcDKvgRIA/jbIWS10BR/7a/kmeOUIeo50qOU4GehQ7PwKWHzI4tUS =SLXN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. I'm not sure what else will break. Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I make the changes upstream and have people let us know what else breaks? William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. I'm not sure what else will break. Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I make the changes upstream and have people let us know what else breaks? are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. I'm not sure what else will break. Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I make the changes upstream and have people let us know what else breaks? William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc - openrc and symlinking rc - openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. Chris Reffett
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 12/11/2013 08:47 PM, Chris Reffett wrote: On 12/11/2013 3:41 PM, William Hubbs wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? I know that once OpenRC with this change is released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. I'm not sure what else will break. Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I make the changes upstream and have people let us know what else breaks? William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958 The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc - openrc and symlinking rc - openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. Chris Reffett +1 The ebuild can grep the inittab and it if finds an rc there, just print a huge warning telling the user to migrate || die. -- Regards, Markos Chandras
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
[I'm not the OpenRC maintainer, I'm only on gentoo-devel because I'm generally interested, and I saw this, I'm not speaking for zigo or anything here.] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Chris Reffett wrote: The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc - openrc and symlinking rc - openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. Chris Reffett Hi, Gentoo (and hello world), I'm breaking my streak of lurking to comment generally on the Debian procedure here. I'm sure the Debian folks would be happy to strip the symlink from the deb over having to patch OpenRC's rc binary = openrc against the upstream source. Shipping /usr/bin/rc = /usr/bin/openrc would be totally cool for Debian, I believe. Hopefully the OpenRC team will come in and correct me if I'm wrong :) Fondly, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:47:49PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:41 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be are you going to rename also rc-service and rc-update? No, there isn't a need for that, just rc. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 12/11/2013 08:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: [I'm not the OpenRC maintainer, I'm only on gentoo-devel because I'm generally interested, and I saw this, I'm not speaking for zigo or anything here.] On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:47:57PM -0500, Chris Reffett wrote: The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc - openrc and symlinking rc - openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. Chris Reffett Hi, Gentoo (and hello world), I'm breaking my streak of lurking to comment generally on the Debian procedure here. I'm sure the Debian folks would be happy to strip the symlink from the deb over having to patch OpenRC's rc binary = openrc against the upstream source. Shipping /usr/bin/rc = /usr/bin/openrc would be totally cool for Debian, I believe. Hopefully the OpenRC team will come in and correct me if I'm wrong :) Fondly, Paul If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately. I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename rc to openrc in their openrc package just before merging it to the read filesystem (I assume Debian also builds and installs in sandbox first?)? In this case we will not have to touch openrc (or the ebuild) at all. -- Regards, Markos Chandras
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +, Markos Chandras wrote: If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately. Awesome. Great to hear it! I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename rc to openrc in their openrc package just before merging it to the read filesystem (I assume Debian also builds and installs in sandbox first?)? In this case we will not have to touch openrc (or the ebuild) at all. Again, I'm not the maintainer, so don't hold me to this - but I remember hearing something about something somewhere thinking the name is `rc', even after moving the binary out of the way. It'd also be great to have a similar setup in Gentoo and Debian, but I can clearly see how Gentoo'ers would be resistant to such a tough change to make. -- Regards, Markos Chandras Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett creff...@gentoo.org wrote: The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc - openrc and symlinking rc - openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. ++ No reason the symlink couldn't be done in the ebuild either - which keeps the package itself clean. There could be news to clean up inittab and such, and then perhaps down the road the compat symlink could be removed. Nice to see interest in Debian (granted, I know there was interest quite a while back). Having more and better options is just good for everybody - I'd like to see OpenRC become the best traditional-style service manager around (though honestly I'd be hard-pressed to think of any that are quite as good already). I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a systemd-compatibility init.d script. That would be symlinked to a service name just like a typical network interface script, and would look for a unit file and interpret it (perhaps just taking a path from conf.d). I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do, setting aside the more active-management features of systemd. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:09:16PM +, Markos Chandras wrote: If that's the case then I see no reason to go through the migration path for users :) The symlink thing can be done immediately. I am wondering, wouldn't Debian be able to rename rc to openrc in their openrc package just before merging it to the read filesystem (I assume Debian also builds and installs in sandbox first?)? In this case we will not have to touch openrc (or the ebuild) at all. No, because of the symlinks that we point to it. Remember that rc is a multi-call binary. for example, all of the symlinks in /lib*/rc/bin will have to be adjusted. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. Make it build-time configurable. Keep default at rc. Let Debian and others rename it as they want/need. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? It's change to change things, it doesn't fix any bugs we have. So don't break things for fun, please ... I know that once OpenRC with this change is released, it will need to probably be p.masked until there is a new release of sysvinit that updates the inittab. I'm not sure what else will break. Does anyone have any ideas wrt other things to look for, or should I make the changes upstream and have people let us know what else breaks? William [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493958
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 12/12/2013 05:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Chris Reffett creff...@gentoo.org wrote: The idea of running a sed on inittab in an ebuild, no matter what the context, terrifies me. Perhaps we can ease this in slowly by renaming rc - openrc and symlinking rc - openrc and making a release with that change concurrent with a news item? Or even just do that in the ebuild rather than in the actual sources. I don't think Debian will keel over and die if it takes a little extra time for the change to go through, and it beats a ton of broken systems. ++ No reason the symlink couldn't be done in the ebuild either - which keeps the package itself clean. There could be news to clean up inittab and such, and then perhaps down the road the compat symlink could be removed. Nice to see interest in Debian (granted, I know there was interest quite a while back). Having more and better options is just good for everybody - I'd like to see OpenRC become the best traditional-style service manager around (though honestly I'd be hard-pressed to think of any that are quite as good already). I think one thing that would be nice to dream about someday would be a systemd-compatibility init.d script. That would be symlinked to a service name just like a typical network interface script, and would look for a unit file and interpret it (perhaps just taking a path from conf.d). I'd think it wouldn't be hard to do, setting aside the more active-management features of systemd. Well, given that systemd unit files don't express dependencies ... I've thought about it and can't figure out a way to make mixed-mode work sanely, at all. You'd have to either manually order the startup sequence, or annotate the unit files with dependency info. Plus you'd need some machinery like socket-activation proxies or you're throwing away even more (to the point where the unit file is just a way to run an executable) I don't think this can be done in a way that adds value to users.
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On 12/12/2013 04:41 AM, William Hubbs wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. My thought is to rename our rc to openrc, since that would be unique. Make it build-time configurable. Keep default at rc. Let Debian and others rename it as they want/need. I know at least one thing that will break is everyone's inittab, so should I sed their inittab in our live ebuild or expect them to fix it and give a warning? It's change to change things, it doesn't fix any bugs we have. So don't break things for fun, please ... Honestly, with Linux systems a symlink won't matter. Just rename the binary to openrc so that we are closer with Debian. It would be nice if in the future docs and blogs and other things could share the same info. For Gentoo just symlink rc - openrc and call it a day. There's also no reason to remove the symlink in the next release like others have said. Keep the thing around for as long as is possible. Cause if you drop it, you're liable to break someone upgrading an old system and they have a higher chance to miss an important ewarn and you know how much I hate breaking upgrades. -- Doug Goldstein
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: renaming rc binary in OpenRC
On 11/12/13 22:41, William Hubbs wrote: All, We got a request from Debian to rename the rc binary of OpenRC due to a naming conflict they have. They have a port of the att plan 9 shell, which has a binary named rc as well[1]. which we ship as app-shells/rc and rename 'rc' to 'rcsh' for unique name just saying
