| 1 |
On 08/24/2010 08:57 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 2 |
> given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no |
| 3 |
> wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Perhaps, but if we want to move in that direction perhaps we should |
| 6 |
consider at least getting openrc stable first. That doesn't mean making |
| 7 |
it perfect, or feature-complete. However, right now we have two |
| 8 |
different baselayouts, and if we start talking about systemd then we'll |
| 9 |
have three. Do we really want to start on seriously supporting a third |
| 10 |
one, without first getting rid of one of the other two? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Alternatively we could dump openrc and move everybody back to |
| 13 |
baselayout-1, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc |
| 16 |
from going stable. One is documentation, one is getting an evms upgrade |
| 17 |
stable on a few minor archs, and one is some kind of mdadm upgrade with |
| 18 |
a few issues. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day" |
| 21 |
or something like that. Everybody can take 15 minutes to contribute to |
| 22 |
a wiki on getting started with openrc, or blog about it, or whatever. |
| 23 |
the docs team can glean the best of that and get the docs in order. The |
| 24 |
evms/mdadm/arch maintainers could make a push to finish up, and others |
| 25 |
can help them with patches. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If we made a real push to get OpenRC stable I'm sure that those bugs |
| 28 |
would get taken care of quickly. Right now I'm guessing that it just |
| 29 |
isn't on anybody's radar. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Or, is the situation with OpenRC less stable than is apparent in the |
| 32 |
tracker? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives