Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting Baselayout2/OpenRC from init.d scripts (summary of debate and plans from bug 270646)

[Roy Marples]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Also, if OpenRC/baselayout is dropping support for things like PPP or
> ADSL[1], and will not guarantee a "stable" configuration (i.e. as
> "final" as baselayout-1 has been, not needing constant user-side
> updates)[2] . . . then we need to find some other solution for our users.

Just to clarify - net.lo and friends, along with bash specific configs 
are NOT going away. They're just not actively being developed with new 
features, nor will they get priority for any fixes. However, net.lo nor 
the modules are installed by default (MKOLDNET=yes is required).

So existing documentation works just fine.

Also, writing documentation to support things like ADSL and PPP now 
entirely depends on upstream working with new stuff. For example, 
wpa_supplicant does not react by itself to hotplugged interfaces and the 
  new OpenRC network script no longer supports per interface 
start/stops. This is a problem, and I've spent some time working on 
patches to wpa_supplicant for this, but upstream is not sure about the 
whole idea.

> If upstream doesn't ever want to slow down, wants to constantly stick in
> new features, try out new things, that's all well and good. More power
> to 'em. But I think that is ultimately not such a good thing for our
> users. Especially if it means constantly dropping support for features,
> sacrificing compatibility, etc. We're already having enough trouble
> trying to ensure future Portage compatibility via EAPIs, we should not
> add in a potential baselayout/OpenRC mess atop that.

Development on OpenRC has slowed down a lot of late, mainly as most of 
my goals of where it should go have now been met. And with moving 
networking to a very simple script, future changes will only be on a per 
init script basis. As OpenRC just supplies enough init scripts to boot a 
basic system any future changes will be in the init scripts themselves 
and thus removed from OpenRC specific documentation.

Of course that doesn't stop various upstreams that Gentoo uses from 
totally changing their user interface.

> Oh, yes . . . and there's the workload it would put on the GDP folks. We
> already have a helluva time running around chasing devs down and prying
> out straight answers about what to update in the existing documentation.
> We'd probably all quit if we had to do the same thing for every new
> openrc/baselayout release.

You could always try writing the code instead ;)

Thanks

Roy