| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:15:14PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote |
| 2 |
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Sorry to add more to the whining but... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Yes, you are in the testing tree. Yes, as a member of testing, *you* |
| 7 |
> > expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test |
| 8 |
> > things, break them, and report bugs. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That means |
| 11 |
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible |
| 14 |
combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there |
| 17 |
> are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we |
| 18 |
> didn't even try it once". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf |
| 21 |
# Global OpenRC configuration settings |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
# Set to "YES" if you want the rc system to try and start services |
| 24 |
# in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we |
| 25 |
# prefix the service output with its name as the output will get |
| 26 |
# jumbled up. |
| 27 |
# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock |
| 28 |
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply |
| 29 |
# patches that fix it without breaking other things! |
| 30 |
#rc_parallel="NO" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The developers tried it, and it worked on *THEIR SYSTEMS*. It appears |
| 33 |
that even the developers don't dare run rc_parallel on their machines... |
| 34 |
nuff said. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
Archives