Bug 467368 – sys-apps/openrc - stacked runlevels only work one level deep (and other fixes)

• Product: Gentoo Hosted Projects
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Max Hacking 2013-04-26 17:37:40 UTC]

Created attachment 346656 [details]
Patch to fix run-level stacking (chaining) issues.

OpenRC support for stacked (chained) runlevels is limited to a single level.  

Also there are other issues with dependency order and incorrect status display when using rc-status (see bug 298826 and bug 426948).

The attached patch should fix these issues.

[Comment 1 Max Hacking 2013-04-28 23:08:58 UTC]

Created attachment 346840 [details, diff]
Patch to fix run-level stacking (chaining) issues.

It seems the problem space for this bug was more interesting than I originally thought.  :-)

I've attached a more comprehensive patch which should resolve some additional issues.

[Comment 2 Max Hacking 2013-04-28 23:13:52 UTC]

Created attachment 346842 [details, diff]
Patch to fix run-level stacking (chaining) issues.

Sorry, added the wrong patch there.  Fixed now.

[Comment 3 William Hubbs 2013-04-29 05:18:26 UTC]

 Max,

 your patch does not apply cleanly to git master.
 Can you please update your patch so that I can apply it cleanly?

 Thanks,

 William

[Comment 4 Max Hacking 2013-04-29 11:13:37 UTC]

Created attachment 346876 [details, diff]
Patch (against current Git master) to fix run-level stacking (chaining) issues.

Rebased patch attached as requested.

[Comment 5 William Hubbs 2013-04-30 20:28:33 UTC]

What is the reason for adding rc_get_runlevel_chain() instead of
using rc_runlevel_stacks()?

Thanks,

William

[Comment 6 Max Hacking 2013-05-01 08:37:51 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> What is the reason for adding rc_get_runlevel_chain() instead of
> using rc_runlevel_stacks()?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> William

rc_runlevel_stacks() returns the stacks a single level deep while rc_get_runlevel_chain() returns the complete chain moving more recently used links to retain dpendency order when multiple runlevels are used.

Eg: Given the runlevel chain below (A uses B & C, B & C use D)

A -> B -> D
  -> C ->

rc_runlevel_stacks() called on A will return B, C.
rc_get_runlevel_chain() called on A will return A, B, C, D.

[Comment 7 William Hubbs 2013-05-01 16:22:15 UTC]

Let me phrase my question another way. Why add rc_get_runlevel_chain instead of fixing rc_runlevel_stacks?

Thanks,

William

[Comment 8 Max Hacking 2013-05-01 17:31:12 UTC]

(In reply to comment #7)
> Let me phrase my question another way. Why add rc_get_runlevel_chain instead
> of fixing rc_runlevel_stacks?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> William

Because rc_runlevel_stacks() may be used in other places where its current behaviour is expected.  Also, I don't intend to search for every call to rc_runlevel_stacks() and refactor it to pass the list instead of expecting it to be returned.  :-)

[Comment 9 Alexander Vershilov (RETIRED) 2013-07-14 07:26:27 UTC]

Sorry but what is the state of this bug? is code applied/reviewed/rejected? Can I somehow help to speedup process?

[Comment 10 Alexander Vershilov (RETIRED) 2013-08-07 06:54:45 UTC]

Patch works fine for me, (except I've removed some code style fixes), if you want them please send separate patch. I'd like someone with a real usecase test (bug 426948).

Also I want to check if it's possible to fix rc_runlevel_stacks instead of introducing new function, as it's hidden function and we are free to change it.

[Comment 11 William Hubbs 2013-09-20 20:23:52 UTC]

The fix for this is in commit 7716bf3 and will be included in
OpenRC-0.13.