Re: First thoughts on s6

From: Avery Payne <avery.p.payne_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:38:42 -0700

On 6/16/2015 7:25 PM, Colin Booth wrote:
> This not working is part of the curse of the maintainer and why I
> think a big collection of definitions that isn't tied to individual
> packages is a mistake. In this case for the examples, Laurent went
> with assuming getty is in the path (though it'll still fail on BSD
> since /usr/libexec isn't in anyones path by default).
Supporting more than just Linux is important to my project, so this is
of interest to me. What is the full name of the getty (including path)?

Adding support for this isn't a big issue, so I somewhat disagree with
your statement that a collection can't work vs everything must be
included in a package. For that definition specifically, I can override
the default $PATH that the scripts use and include /usr/libexec as
needed; this is by design. Such a definition is stored as just another
envdir setting so there really isn't some weird portability workaround
involved. At runtime, if the directory or program isn't there then no
harm, no foul.

That being said, I do see your argument and understand that it would
make more sense from a systems housekeeping perspective; why have every
definition present, instead of just the ones installed?
Received on Wed Jun 17 2015 - 18:38:42 UTC