List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
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.
> It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever. I
> think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1.
> Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d
> systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target.
no clue what you're talking about. Gentoo wrote baselayout from scratch, and
then rewrote baselayout-2 from scratch in C to address some fundamental issues
at the time. then Roy stepped up to do a lot of the work and when he decided
to part ways from Gentoo over POSIX shell/ebuild issues, but wanted to keep
working on baselayout-2, we allowed him to do this. so he renamed the core
bits to openrc and moved the development off of Gentoo infra.
> 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.
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)