| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:37 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak |
| 2 |
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > > I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question: |
| 5 |
> > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457 |
| 6 |
> > > 370.xml |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > An interesting read, until the rants start, we'll just have to wait and |
| 11 |
> > see. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Well, there isn't any question as far as whether or not openrc is going to |
| 16 |
> be stabilized, there is however a question of what's going to be put in |
| 17 |
> ~arch afterwards, whether or not to use devicekit or whatever it's called |
| 18 |
> now. I don't have time to find them myself, but check out the two threads |
| 19 |
> named "The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo" and "openrc stabilization |
| 20 |
> update". The general consesus is that for now openrc will be stabilized |
| 21 |
> and the project has been brought back into Gentoo, so the question for now |
| 22 |
> is what the future of ~arch is. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc to |
| 28 |
the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I think you misunderstand what ~arch means. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives