| 1 |
On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then |
| 3 |
> why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
there is no debate. people saw Roy moving on and got scared. as i said |
| 6 |
originally, it makes no difference to us. we're moving to openrc and it will |
| 7 |
continue to be our default init system for the foreseeable future and the |
| 8 |
support channel is unchanged: go to bugs.gentoo.org. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
as for people who want to move to the latest shiny init, as i also said |
| 11 |
before, nothing is stopping them from getting it working today. we've had |
| 12 |
alternative init systems in the past that drop-in replace baselayout/openrc |
| 13 |
and there will continue to be ones in the future. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
however, until someone actually does the work to get one of the alternatives |
| 16 |
in the tree and actually working with other packages, there is no debate to be |
| 17 |
had as to the default init package. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
i'd also highlight that openrc focuses on one thing: it exists to boot the |
| 20 |
system and manage daemons via init scripts. it does not do all of the |
| 21 |
extended things that systemd is taking over (inetd, crond, udevd, etc...). |
| 22 |
-mike |
Archives