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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:02:58
Message-Id: 4C769E17.2000307@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
On 08/25/2010 08:29 PM, Duncan wrote:
> But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of > the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a > point that's not being argued any more? I believe that's what Mike's > WTFing about. It's not that you're wrong, you're not, it's that you're > debating a question that's no longer being asked. >
See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098 and http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098 The post I replied to cited upstream issues as a reason not to adopt OpenRC. My point is that upstream issues are not a distinguishing factor between OpenRC and baselayout-1. It isn't like I'm re-opening a thread from months ago. I'm replying directly to a point others have raised. If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it... Rich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>