Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:15:19
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] openrc portage news item by Brian Harring
1 Brian Harring posted on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:59:45 -0700 as excerpted:
3 > Checking the boot levels, udev included, same thing- if ROOT=/ and
4 > baselayout is there already you likely *could* look at the running
5 > system to see what's needed/in use, and kick rc-update as needed for
6 > spots where it *isn't*.
8 Um... 32-bit chroots for amd64 comes to mind, tho that's just a single
9 supported case of the general idea. Here, I've adapted the idea slightly
10 by simply installing a complete system to the chroot, just never actually
11 /running/ it from there, as a maintained system image that was initially
12 transferred to USB, now updated thru rsync, for my netbook.
14 Portage's ROOT is unchanged in these cases, but depending on how the
15 detection of the running system is achieved, the script might attempt
16 changes based on the components of the 64-bit HOST system, not the 32-bit
17 chroot system image, or conversely, changes inappropriate for an image
18 that never actually boots on its host system. That would *NOT* be a good
19 thing!
21 So any such detection would have to be based on far more than the setting
22 for ROOT and existence of baselayout.
24 Meanwhile, all this is a rather nice idea in theory, but with literally
25 days left before pulling the trigger, now's rather late in the game to
26 bring the suggestion. Development and proper testing of such a script
27 would certainly take months, at least. This whole idea, suggested now,
28 seems to me to be a rather advanced case of letting the perfect be the
29 enemy of the far better but nobody claiming perfect. The time for such a
30 suggestion would have been several months ago when the final push toward
31 stabilization and development of the final migration technique was
32 announced. And certainly, trying to shove the required development and
33 testing into anything less something like six more months reasonable
34 minimum, is folly indeed. Meanwhile, existing stable gets further and
35 further behind and harder to maintain, and Gentoo looks more and more
36 "legacy".
38 Are you actually trying to delay the upgrade to OpenRC /forever/? Why?
39 There's other questions I could ask but there ARE things worse than
40 unasked questions. I'm seriously fighting the urge to go there as that
41 bit of list history is something that doesn't need repeated, for sure.
43 Meanwhile, Gentoo has always been about expecting Gentoo's users to take
44 responsibility as their own sysadmins. Yes, we document, and automate
45 where reasonably possible, but there's a reason for etc-update, dispatch-
46 conf, etc. This is as good a case for letting Gentoo users take ultimate
47 responsibility as admins on their own systems as it gets. We've waited
48 long enough. The guides are ready. The systems are ready. The warnings
49 are ready. Now it's time to pull that trigger.
51 --
52 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
53 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
54 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>