1 |
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: |
3 |
> > If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, |
4 |
> > the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future |
7 |
> development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never |
8 |
> had an upstream, and never will have one. |
9 |
|
10 |
wtf are you talking about ? Gentoo was always been the upstream of it. |
11 |
|
12 |
> It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever. I |
13 |
> think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1. |
14 |
> Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d |
15 |
> systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target. |
16 |
|
17 |
no clue what you're talking about. Gentoo wrote baselayout from scratch, and |
18 |
then rewrote baselayout-2 from scratch in C to address some fundamental issues |
19 |
at the time. then Roy stepped up to do a lot of the work and when he decided |
20 |
to part ways from Gentoo over POSIX shell/ebuild issues, but wanted to keep |
21 |
working on baselayout-2, we allowed him to do this. so he renamed the core |
22 |
bits to openrc and moved the development off of Gentoo infra. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even |
25 |
> if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it? |
26 |
|
27 |
it's already cleaned up. this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 |
28 |
and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase. |
29 |
-mike |