1 |
On 08/24/2010 08:57 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
2 |
> given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no |
3 |
> wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-) |
4 |
|
5 |
Perhaps, but if we want to move in that direction perhaps we should |
6 |
consider at least getting openrc stable first. That doesn't mean making |
7 |
it perfect, or feature-complete. However, right now we have two |
8 |
different baselayouts, and if we start talking about systemd then we'll |
9 |
have three. Do we really want to start on seriously supporting a third |
10 |
one, without first getting rid of one of the other two? |
11 |
|
12 |
Alternatively we could dump openrc and move everybody back to |
13 |
baselayout-1, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. |
14 |
|
15 |
Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc |
16 |
from going stable. One is documentation, one is getting an evms upgrade |
17 |
stable on a few minor archs, and one is some kind of mdadm upgrade with |
18 |
a few issues. |
19 |
|
20 |
It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day" |
21 |
or something like that. Everybody can take 15 minutes to contribute to |
22 |
a wiki on getting started with openrc, or blog about it, or whatever. |
23 |
the docs team can glean the best of that and get the docs in order. The |
24 |
evms/mdadm/arch maintainers could make a push to finish up, and others |
25 |
can help them with patches. |
26 |
|
27 |
If we made a real push to get OpenRC stable I'm sure that those bugs |
28 |
would get taken care of quickly. Right now I'm guessing that it just |
29 |
isn't on anybody's radar. |
30 |
|
31 |
Or, is the situation with OpenRC less stable than is apparent in the |
32 |
tracker? |
33 |
|
34 |
Rich |