Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
>>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
>>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
>>> available via the layman module "openrc".
>>>
>>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and
>>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
>>>
>>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the
>>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated
>>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns,
>>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the
>>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
>>>
>>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their
>>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very
>>> smooth transition.
>>>
>>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1].
>>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
>>>
>>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will
>>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
>>>
>> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
>> <vapier@g.o> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the
>> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and
>> committed it to the tree this weekend.
>>
>> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm
>> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since
>> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my
>> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for
>> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.
>>
>> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit
>> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.
>>
>
> not sure why you're getting pissy.  but let's put some things straight shall
> we.
>
> - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo.  i changed things of course
> because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style problems, and
> did some things wrongly.
>
You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell 
style. And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad 
conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ and removing important ewarn msgs 
to users?

> - i'd been poking openrc on my system long before "this weekend".
>
Great. And have you been working with the docs people or the arch teams 
and with the Gentoo/FreeBSD guys? Because some of your changes might 
work on your system, but not on other systems

> - only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort.  we have e-mail
> addresses too last i checked.
>
Refresh your mail client because I did send you e-mail. And as far as I 
know, Roy did too.

> - the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded.  nothing precludes you from
> working on it.  or writing docs.  or doing anything else you're talking about
> doing.
> - and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in the
> tree.  people test things then.
> -mike
>
It's called teamwork, Mike. It also looks awful suspicious when we don't 
hear a peep out of you about OpenRC until 1 day before I was going to 
add it to the tree. What would have been so hard about sending a follow 
up e-mail to the thread I started about getting OpenRC in the tree 
saying "Hey everyone, going to stick openrc-9999 in the tree now with 
some changes I feel should be made."
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list