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
-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
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
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
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
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
-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,
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
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
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
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
[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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
