Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 02:48:58AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:50 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak
> Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
>
> > > It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc
> > > to  the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstand what ~arch means.
> >
> > I'll gladly be explained, just in case I should have it wrong. :-)
> >
> > What I meant however was that there has been talk of starting a migration
> > of ~arch users to devicekit when it is deemed ready. As far as I remember
> > no conclusion was brought to that discussion other than openrc being moved
> > inhouse and seeing how that went. So the ball is still in the air as far
> > as openrc and a replacement goes, to my understanding.
>
>
> ~arch is the collection of unstable ebuilds in portage; stuff that is good
> enough for a release but not yet fully tested within a Gentoo system. With
> enough successful feedback from users, it is marked stable and moves to
> "arch".
>
> ~arch is not experimental, stuff planned for the future, someone's wicked
> overlay or anything else other than stable releases in a *gentoo* test phase,
> i.e. it's not so much the software that's being tested but the ebuild.
>

<snip>

It seems I understood then, though it seems I haven't clearly portrayed my understanding, but thanks for explaining anyway :)

> devicekit stands very little chance of ever being the default. It depends on
> dbus and expat. Remember hal and all the crap that came along with it? Gentoo
> is not Ubuntu or Fedora, it is installable on anything from ARM phones to
> IBM's gigantic hard iron. Why on earth would anyone mandate dbus to be
> compulsory on a headless server for example?
>
> If you want to know what the future holds for Gentoo, best not to listen much
> to a bunch of dudes rambling on gentoo-dev and blogs. They're just talking,
> and talk is cheap. If you want to know what the future holds for @system and
> the toolchain, vapier is a good one to listen to. So's the council, GLEPs and
> whatever happens in voting. The kong thread that's been mentioned in this
> thread has a gem of a quote from vapier, something like:
>
> "People saw Roy moving away from Gentoo, and freaked out."
>
> That's it, nothing more. Some dudes freaked out.
>
> Besides, lookee here:
>
> nazgul ~ # eix -e devicekit
> * sys-apps/devicekit
>      Available versions:  (~)003 {doc}
>      Homepage:            http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DeviceKit
>      Description:         D-Bus abstraction for enumerating devices and
> listening for device events using udev
>
> nazgul ~ # eix -e dbus-glib
> [I] dev-libs/dbus-glib
>      Available versions:  0.86 (~)0.88 {bash-completion debug doc static-libs
> test}
>      Installed versions:  0.88(00:25:33 12/10/10)(bash-completion -debug -doc
> -static-libs -test)
>      Homepage:            http://dbus.freedesktop.org/
>      Description:         D-Bus bindings for glib
>
> nazgul ~ # eix systemd
> No matches found.
>
> devicekit has one version (003) and systemd doesn't even have an ebuild in the
> tree. That system is probably sitting about where openrc was when Roy had
> gotten to 20% of where he eventually took it.
>
> openrc works, it has three outstanding edge case blocker bugs. What possible
> technical reason is there to go chasing butterflies down some totally unproven
> path?
>

In this case I'm completely with you. While there are nifty features in systemd it is nothing that can't be achieved by other means and openrc really does work brilliantly (for me) so I'm not exactly against systemd, I just don't see a point in using it. Other than aligning with other distros, but then what's the point of having different distributions if they all are alike :)

-- 
Zeerak Waseem