| 1 |
On 23/11/2014 20:35, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/23/2014 1:00 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:44:12PM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Since OpenRC is the *default* - for now at least - it is *king*, and |
| 5 |
>>> systemd is the red-headed step-child, and as such OpenRC is and will be |
| 6 |
>>> 100% fully supported. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> With that in mind, it is also 100% on the *systemd proponents* to make |
| 9 |
>>> sure that *systemd* is 'fully supported' as an *alternate* init system. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> You're wrong. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Really? OpenRC isn't the default init system for Gentoo? Prove it... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> At first, Gentoo does with what software maintainers offer. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Irrelevant. Since OpenRC is the default init system, any package that |
| 18 |
> doesn't work properly with it would, by definition, be a bug that must |
| 19 |
> be fixed - if the maintainer wants their package to be marked as |
| 20 |
> stable/usable by 99.99% of gentoo users. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That is not true. In Gentoo, "default package" almost always means "the |
| 23 |
package portage will chose to install unless you say otherwise". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It means nothing more than that. It especially does not mean what you |
| 26 |
imply wrt bugs and the severity thereof. It does not imply some favoured |
| 27 |
status for the default package, and that package is most often the |
| 28 |
default for simple historical reasons dating way back to when it was the |
| 29 |
only choice. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives