Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:17:13
Message-Id: 4C757A1D.1000901@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo by Mike Frysinger
On 08/25/2010 03:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote: >> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: >>> If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, >>> the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. >> >> Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future >> development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never >> had an upstream, and never will have one. > > wtf are you talking about ? Gentoo was always been the upstream of it. >
Uh, that was essentially my point... :) Clearly upstream support is not an issue that distinguishes openrc from baselayout-1.
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even >> if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it? > > it's already cleaned up. this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 > and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase.
And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues. Sure, we can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with baselayout-1 for another few more years. I was just being a bit subtle in my argument... Rich

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>