| 1 |
On 08/25/2010 08:29 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of |
| 3 |
> the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a |
| 4 |
> point that's not being argued any more? I believe that's what Mike's |
| 5 |
> WTFing about. It's not that you're wrong, you're not, it's that you're |
| 6 |
> debating a question that's no longer being asked. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
See: |
| 10 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098 |
| 11 |
and |
| 12 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098 |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The post I replied to cited upstream issues as a reason not to adopt |
| 15 |
OpenRC. My point is that upstream issues are not a distinguishing |
| 16 |
factor between OpenRC and baselayout-1. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It isn't like I'm re-opening a thread from months ago. I'm replying |
| 19 |
directly to a point others have raised. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then |
| 22 |
why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives