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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> 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.

that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only 
makes sense for something going into the tree.

> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad
> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/

looks/tested correct to me

> and removing important ewarn msgs to users?

must be some magical ewarn only you can see because both ebuilds have the same 
set of messages

> > - 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

assuming it breaks on every system but mine, it's not keyworded/unmasked.  so 
any problems are easily corrected for no penalty.

> > - 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.

gmail says neither of you sent me an e-mail in the last month.  perhaps you 
should cite exact subjects/message-ids/dates.

> > - 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.
>
> 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."

you're pissing over nothing.  i stated openly at a council meeting two weeks 
ago i was working on it.  so if you want to draw any random conclusions you 
like, i frankly dont care.  you can either continue to make a big stink over 
literally nothing, or continue on with what you've been doing.  have at it.
-mike