Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:16:29 -0400 as excerpted:
> And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not
> bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues. Sure, we
> can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not
> abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with
> baselayout-1 for another few more years.
AFAIK, you're arguing the (possible, but really never became more than a
potential) debate of several months ago. As OpenRC was originally from
Gentoo's baselayout, it's not a big problem to re-adopt it as upstream
once again, certainly less of a problem at this late date than staying on
baselayout-1 stable for another several years would be likely to be, given
how legacy it is, and how close to stable it already is. The loss of
external upstream was just one more hiccup of a number of them over the
years, and isn't a big problem, especially when someone's already stepped
for the job.
Perhaps we'll eventually switch to something else, but having seen the
pains openrc went thru, I'd certainly not want to jump on to upstart or
the like at this point. Let the new round of candidates mature a bit, and
then do an evaluation. Meanwhile, what few bugs remain for openrc
stabilization pale in comparison to the bugs and adaption issues we'd have
moving to something else, and baselayout-1 really /is/ anachronistic and
not a particularly viable option at this point, so for the medium term,
openrc remains the only really viable option.
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.
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman