Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:07:05
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo by Richard Freeman
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: > > If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, > > the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. > > Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future > development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never > had an upstream, and never will have one.
wtf are you talking about ? Gentoo was always been the upstream of it.
> It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever. I > think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1. > Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d > systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target.
no clue what you're talking about. Gentoo wrote baselayout from scratch, and then rewrote baselayout-2 from scratch in C to address some fundamental issues at the time. then Roy stepped up to do a lot of the work and when he decided to part ways from Gentoo over POSIX shell/ebuild issues, but wanted to keep working on baselayout-2, we allowed him to do this. so he renamed the core bits to openrc and moved the development off of Gentoo infra.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even > if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it?
it's already cleaned up. this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase. -mike


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o>