1 |
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Irrelevant. Since OpenRC is the default init system, any package that |
4 |
> doesn't work properly with it would, by definition, be a bug that must |
5 |
> be fixed - if the maintainer wants their package to be marked as |
6 |
> stable/usable by 99.99% of gentoo users. |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Packages do not need to support openrc to be marked as stable. |
10 |
|
11 |
Also, very few bugs "must be fixed." It is perfectly acceptable for a |
12 |
package to be in the tree and not have an init.d script. Really the |
13 |
only kinds of bugs that require fixing are ones that deal with minimal |
14 |
QA standards and most of those pertain to security. |
15 |
|
16 |
Sure, OpenRC is supported in the same sense that SystemD is supported |
17 |
- if you have a problem you can post on the forums or mailing lists |
18 |
and you might or might not get an answer to your questions. |
19 |
|
20 |
If you want real support, call up Canonical, Redhat, Suse, or Oracle |
21 |
(or any of the other commercial vendors). |
22 |
|
23 |
The current Gentoo policy is that maintainers cannot block other devs |
24 |
from adding support for systemd/openrc/etc to their packages if they |
25 |
lack such support. Gentoo policy does NOT require maintainers to |
26 |
support any particular init system. |
27 |
|
28 |
If you feel otherwise, I suggest you cite the policy. |
29 |
|
30 |
Frankly the last thing we need with this whole debate is folks drawing |
31 |
lines in the sand. I happily support both systemd and openrc in the |
32 |
packages I maintain, and if somebody wanted to contribute a runit |
33 |
script and test it, I'd be happy to commit this as well. I don't run |
34 |
eudev but if the eudev team offered a patch to make things work better |
35 |
with their config I'd be happy to accept it as long as they |
36 |
maintain/test it. |
37 |
|
38 |
Some devs take this stuff too personally and for a while we had devs |
39 |
threatening revert wars to try to ensure that certain configurations |
40 |
they disagreed with wouldn't work well. The current policy forbids |
41 |
that kind of behavior (which was the sort of thing everybody is |
42 |
complaining about in this thread). Maintainers don't get to use their |
43 |
packages as soapboxes to push their agendas. However, maintainers |
44 |
also aren't required to put in effort to support configurations they |
45 |
don't use. Live and let live. |
46 |
|
47 |
If people want a distro that enforced doctrinal purity, I suggest you |
48 |
go over to the FSF website and run whatever blob-free distro with |
49 |
0.01% market share they're endorsing at the moment. Gentoo has always |
50 |
been pragmatic. Nobody promises support for anything, but you'll find |
51 |
that in practice a LOT more oddball configurations are "supported" by |
52 |
Gentoo than your average distro. |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Rich |