| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> All, |
| 11 |
>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the |
| 13 |
>>>>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch |
| 14 |
>>>>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is |
| 15 |
>>>>> available via the layman module "openrc". |
| 16 |
>>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and |
| 18 |
>>>>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. |
| 19 |
>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the |
| 21 |
>>>>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated |
| 22 |
>>>>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, |
| 23 |
>>>>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the |
| 24 |
>>>>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. |
| 25 |
>>>>> |
| 26 |
>>>>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their |
| 27 |
>>>>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very |
| 28 |
>>>>> smooth transition. |
| 29 |
>>>>> |
| 30 |
>>>>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. |
| 31 |
>>>>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. |
| 32 |
>>>>> |
| 33 |
>>>>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will |
| 34 |
>>>>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. |
| 35 |
>>>>> |
| 36 |
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 |
| 37 |
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 |
| 38 |
>>>>> |
| 39 |
>>>> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger |
| 40 |
>>>> <vapier@g.o> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the |
| 41 |
>>>> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and |
| 42 |
>>>> committed it to the tree this weekend. |
| 43 |
>>>> |
| 44 |
>>>> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm |
| 45 |
>>>> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since |
| 46 |
>>>> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my |
| 47 |
>>>> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for |
| 48 |
>>>> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. |
| 49 |
>>>> |
| 50 |
>>>> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit |
| 51 |
>>>> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. |
| 52 |
>>>> |
| 53 |
>>> not sure why you're getting pissy. but let's put some things straight |
| 54 |
>>> shall we. |
| 55 |
>>> |
| 56 |
>>> - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo. i changed things of |
| 57 |
>>> course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style |
| 58 |
>>> problems, and did some things wrongly. |
| 59 |
>>> |
| 60 |
>> You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell |
| 61 |
>> style. |
| 62 |
>> |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only |
| 65 |
> makes sense for something going into the tree. |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
>> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad |
| 69 |
>> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ |
| 70 |
>> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> looks/tested correct to me |
| 73 |
> |
| 74 |
breaks for anything with a module parameter |
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives