1 |
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I think putting more pressure so systemd isn't given as granted would be |
4 |
> more healthy for both those who are not using it (because, again, is an |
5 |
> aberration for any kind of daemon not written for it) and those that want to |
6 |
> use it (since maybe as desktop-only it might have some nice integrations). |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
I'm not sure I've seen anybody talk of it being a given (ie no other |
10 |
configuration is supported). If many devs want openrc to stick around |
11 |
indefinitely I'm sure it will remain supported. |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
> Probably just adding the dbus interfaces and thinning it down might be |
15 |
> something useful if that integration might have use-cases. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
I would think the intent would be to stay close to upstream as is usually |
19 |
the case with Gentoo. If they have integrations with 14 things than we |
20 |
should, and that shouldn't be horribly difficult since all the upstream |
21 |
projects would support them. That said, there is wisdom in only tackling a |
22 |
few things at a time and having 2 working integrations might be more useful |
23 |
than 47 non-working ones. |
24 |
|
25 |
Is there something in particular that is causing alarm with systemd? All |
26 |
I've seen is a package in the tree and some discussion. I'm sure there will |
27 |
be requests for various packages to install some files needed for |
28 |
integrations/etc. If anything is traumatic I'd be specific in stating |
29 |
concerns so that the root cause can be addressed. |
30 |
|
31 |
Rich |