Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Josh Saddler <nightmorph@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:45:21
Message-Id: 4A2C26DB.3040402@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646) by Samuli Suominen
1 Samuli Suominen wrote:
2 > Robin H. Johnson wrote:
3 >> GDP team:
4 >> (I didn't hear from you in the bug)
5 >> Could you please update:
6 >> - handbook section "Writing Init scripts"
7 >> - OpenRC migration guide
8 >
9 > ACK on this one, we are already overwhelmed by openrc changes wrt init
10 > scripts at media teams. Or at least, I am.
11
12 Then, my fellow developers, ya'll need to tell us exactly what needs to
13 change. That has not yet happened on the bugs, just a lot of offtopic
14 discussion relevant to the package maintainers, but not to the GDP for
15 documentation purposes. Just because there's lots of chatter on e.g.
16 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270646 doesn't mean that the GDP
17 has any idea of how to proceed.
18
19 GuideXML patches are nice, but not necessary. What we *do* need, at a
20 minimum, is a concise description of what the current text says, and
21 what it needs to say. Thanks.
22
23 * * *
24
25 Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or
26 ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a "stable" configuration (i.e. as
27 "final" as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side
28 updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users.
29
30 If upstream doesn't ever want to slow down, wants to constantly stick in
31 new features, try out new things, that's all well and good. More power
32 to 'em. But I think that is ultimately not such a good thing for our
33 users. Especially if it means constantly dropping support for features,
34 sacrificing compatibility, etc. We're already having enough trouble
35 trying to ensure future Portage compatibility via EAPIs, we should not
36 add in a potential baselayout/OpenRC mess atop that.
37
38 Oh, yes . . . and there's the workload it would put on the GDP folks. We
39 already have a helluva time running around chasing devs down and prying
40 out straight answers about what to update in the existing documentation.
41 We'd probably all quit if we had to do the same thing for every new
42 openrc/baselayout release.
43
44 [1]
45 http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c200905252003.42176.rbu%40gentoo.org%3e
46 [2]
47 http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c200905252003.42176.rbu%40gentoo.org%3e

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies