| 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 |
Archives