| 1 |
On 08/25/2010 03:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, |
| 5 |
>>> the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future |
| 8 |
>> development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never |
| 9 |
>> had an upstream, and never will have one. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> wtf are you talking about ? Gentoo was always been the upstream of it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Uh, that was essentially my point... :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Clearly upstream support is not an issue that distinguishes openrc from |
| 17 |
baselayout-1. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even |
| 20 |
>> if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> it's already cleaned up. this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 |
| 23 |
> and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not |
| 26 |
bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues. Sure, we |
| 27 |
can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not |
| 28 |
abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with |
| 29 |
baselayout-1 for another few more years. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I was just being a bit subtle in my argument... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives