[gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

All,

This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the 
Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch 
teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available 
via the layman module "openrc".

I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and 
work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.

That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the 
transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated 
baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions 
and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla 
entries or e-mail.

I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their 
system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very 
smooth transition.

That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. The 
bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].

Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will not 
have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1308 bytes --]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> All,
> 
> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the 
> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch 
> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available 
> via the layman module "openrc".
> 
> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and 
> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.

The installation handbooks won't be changed until openrc & baselayout-2 
are stabilized and shipped with the stage3 tarballs.

The same goes for our existing documentation. Until the new baselayout & 
openrc are stabilized, made the default, *and* the old stuff is marked 
deprecated, don't expect it to show up in our other documents alongside 
baselayout-1 content. The last thing I want is to fork our documentation 
code samples, and duplicate everything with "if you're on baselayout2 
and/or openrc, do this instead...." instructions. That type of thing is 
a maintenance and usability headache. It's all or nothing. "There can be 
only one!"

I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if 
we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration 
will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Roy Marples]

On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote:
> I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if
> we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration
> will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.

I already provide documentation with commands in example config files and man 
pages that cover nearly every aspect on OpenRC and all it's commands.

The nice thing about not being a Gentoo dev means I don't feel the urge to 
write a migration how to. However, here's a really good primer.

1) Install OpenRC
2) Review all updated files in /etc/conf.d/ and /etc/rc.conf [1] [2]
3) If using a "volume" such as LVM, you'll find an appropriate init script 
in /etc/init.d that you need to add to the boot runlevel.
4) Carry on as normal [3]

Thanks

Roy

[1] The case of variable names has been changed from UPPER to lower. This is 
for a few reasons (removes confusion vs environment vars, looks nicer). 
However, *existing* UPPER case vars should still work.
[2] Paludis users will need to ensure that the init scripts checkfs and 
checkroot are removed. I don't care whose "bug" this is, but neither side 
wants to fix it.
[3] A reboot is currently needed as for some reason state data isn't migrated 
from baselayout-1. This is probably due to OpenRC being split from baselayout 
and the code is pretty much the same here. Maybe some plucky Gentoo ebuild 
dev can step up and fix it.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote:
>   
>> I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if
>> we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration
>> will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.
>>     
>
> I already provide documentation with commands in example config files and man 
> pages that cover nearly every aspect on OpenRC and all it's commands.
>
> The nice thing about not being a Gentoo dev means I don't feel the urge to 
> write a migration how to. However, here's a really good primer.
>
> 1) Install OpenRC
> 2) Review all updated files in /etc/conf.d/ and /etc/rc.conf [1] [2]
> 3) If using a "volume" such as LVM, you'll find an appropriate init script 
> in /etc/init.d that you need to add to the boot runlevel.
> 4) Carry on as normal [3]
>
> Thanks
>
> Roy
>
> [1] The case of variable names has been changed from UPPER to lower. This is 
> for a few reasons (removes confusion vs environment vars, looks nicer). 
> However, *existing* UPPER case vars should still work.
> [2] Paludis users will need to ensure that the init scripts checkfs and 
> checkroot are removed. I don't care whose "bug" this is, but neither side 
> wants to fix it.
> [3] A reboot is currently needed as for some reason state data isn't migrated 
> from baselayout-1. This is probably due to OpenRC being split from baselayout 
> and the code is pretty much the same here. Maybe some plucky Gentoo ebuild 
> dev can step up and fix it.
>   
You missed the whole /etc/modules.autoload.d/* -> /etc/conf.d/modules 
but I already discussed that with Josh for the guide. ;)
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2008/3/20, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote:
> >
> >> I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if
> >> we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration
> >> will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun.
> >>
> >
> > I already provide documentation with commands in example config files and man
> > pages that cover nearly every aspect on OpenRC and all it's commands.
> >
> > The nice thing about not being a Gentoo dev means I don't feel the urge to
> > write a migration how to. However, here's a really good primer.
> >
> > 1) Install OpenRC
> > 2) Review all updated files in /etc/conf.d/ and /etc/rc.conf [1] [2]
> > 3) If using a "volume" such as LVM, you'll find an appropriate init script
> > in /etc/init.d that you need to add to the boot runlevel.
> > 4) Carry on as normal [3]
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Roy
> >
> > [1] The case of variable names has been changed from UPPER to lower. This is
> > for a few reasons (removes confusion vs environment vars, looks nicer).
> > However, *existing* UPPER case vars should still work.
> > [2] Paludis users will need to ensure that the init scripts checkfs and
> > checkroot are removed. I don't care whose "bug" this is, but neither side
> > wants to fix it.
> > [3] A reboot is currently needed as for some reason state data isn't migrated
> > from baselayout-1. This is probably due to OpenRC being split from baselayout
> > and the code is pretty much the same here. Maybe some plucky Gentoo ebuild
> > dev can step up and fix it.
> >
> You missed the whole /etc/modules.autoload.d/* -> /etc/conf.d/modules
> but I already discussed that with Josh for the guide. ;)
> --
> gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

Maybe the XSESSION variable disappearing from /etc/rc.conf and the
changed settings in /etc/conf.d/clock are worth consideration too!

Regards,

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the
> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated
> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions
> and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla
> entries or e-mail.

everything should be handled via base-system@gentoo.org like normal.  direct 
assignment to individuals wrongly cuts herds out of the loop as to whats 
going on.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> All,
>
> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the 
> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch 
> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is 
> available via the layman module "openrc".
>
> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and 
> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
>
> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the 
> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated 
> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, 
> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the 
> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
>
> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their 
> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very 
> smooth transition.
>
> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. 
> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
>
> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will 
> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
>
It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger 
<vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the 
OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and 
committed it to the tree this weekend.

Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm 
backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since 
I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my 
attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for 
OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.

I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit 
the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1272 bytes --]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger 
> <vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the 
> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and 
> committed it to the tree this weekend.
> 
> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm 
> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since 
> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my 
> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for 
> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.
> 
> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit 
> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.

Well, *somebody* had better get their act together and talk with me 
about the migration document. I don't care about the ebuild so much as I 
do about making sure there's a howto for the migration process.

If baselayout-2 & OpenRC are the future of Gentoo, then gosh darnit, we 
need to work together. That means people "in the know" need to 
communicate with me on the draft (that I've already sent to cardoe), 
regardless of any who's-ebuild-are-we-using-epenis-fights. :)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Josh Saddler wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger 
>> <vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of 
>> the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, 
>> and committed it to the tree this weekend.
>>
>> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, 
>> I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration 
>> himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of 
>> OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a 
>> migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to 
>> him.
>>
>> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it 
>> hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.
>
> Well, *somebody* had better get their act together and talk with me 
> about the migration document. I don't care about the ebuild so much as 
> I do about making sure there's a howto for the migration process.
>
> If baselayout-2 & OpenRC are the future of Gentoo, then gosh darnit, 
> we need to work together. That means people "in the know" need to 
> communicate with me on the draft (that I've already sent to cardoe), 
> regardless of any who's-ebuild-are-we-using-epenis-fights. :)
>
I was trying to work together with the docs guys, the GMN peoples, the 
release engineering people, and our arch teams. However, Mike "The 
Decider" Frysinger does not want to work with everyone and has chosen to 
do his own thing. It just sucked the fun right out of the project for me 
and made it disinteresting in a heart beat.

I had the fun of trying his ebuild out on one of my machines this 
morning and it happily broke my stable amd64 install.

I would give you information if I was in possession of any.... Mike has 
still yet to reply to anyone's attempts to contact him.


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2875 bytes --]

On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
> > Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
> > teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
> > available via the layman module "openrc".
> >
> > I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and
> > work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
> >
> > That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the
> > transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated
> > baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns,
> > suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the
> > associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
> >
> > I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their
> > system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very
> > smooth transition.
> >
> > That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1].
> > The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
> >
> > Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will
> > not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
> >
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
>
> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
> <vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the
> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and
> committed it to the tree this weekend.
>
> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm
> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since
> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my
> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for
> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.
>
> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit
> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.

not sure why you're getting pissy.  but let's put some things straight shall 
we.

- the ebuild in question was from the layman repo.  i changed things of course 
because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style problems, and 
did some things wrongly.
- i'd been poking openrc on my system long before "this weekend".
- only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort.  we have e-mail 
addresses too last i checked.
- the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded.  nothing precludes you from 
working on it.  or writing docs.  or doing anything else you're talking about 
doing.
- and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in the 
tree.  people test things then.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>     
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
>>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
>>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
>>> available via the layman module "openrc".
>>>
>>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and
>>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
>>>
>>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the
>>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated
>>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns,
>>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the
>>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
>>>
>>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their
>>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very
>>> smooth transition.
>>>
>>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1].
>>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
>>>
>>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will
>>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
>>>       
>> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
>> <vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the
>> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and
>> committed it to the tree this weekend.
>>
>> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm
>> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since
>> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my
>> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for
>> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.
>>
>> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit
>> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.
>>     
>
> not sure why you're getting pissy.  but let's put some things straight shall 
> we.
>
> - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo.  i changed things of course 
> because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style problems, and 
> did some things wrongly.
>   
You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell 
style. And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad 
conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ and removing important ewarn msgs 
to users?

> - i'd been poking openrc on my system long before "this weekend".
>   
Great. And have you been working with the docs people or the arch teams 
and with the Gentoo/FreeBSD guys? Because some of your changes might 
work on your system, but not on other systems

> - only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort.  we have e-mail 
> addresses too last i checked.
>   
Refresh your mail client because I did send you e-mail. And as far as I 
know, Roy did too.

> - the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded.  nothing precludes you from 
> working on it.  or writing docs.  or doing anything else you're talking about 
> doing.
> - and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in the 
> tree.  people test things then.
> -mike
>   
It's called teamwork, Mike. It also looks awful suspicious when we don't 
hear a peep out of you about OpenRC until 1 day before I was going to 
add it to the tree. What would have been so hard about sending a follow 
up e-mail to the thread I started about getting OpenRC in the tree 
saying "Hey everyone, going to stick openrc-9999 in the tree now with 
some changes I feel should be made."
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4895 bytes --]

On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
> >>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
> >>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
> >>> available via the layman module "openrc".
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and
> >>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the
> >>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated
> >>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns,
> >>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the
> >>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
> >>>
> >>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their
> >>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very
> >>> smooth transition.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1].
> >>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
> >>>
> >>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will
> >>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
> >>>
> >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
> >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
> >>
> >> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
> >> <vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the
> >> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and
> >> committed it to the tree this weekend.
> >>
> >> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm
> >> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since
> >> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my
> >> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for
> >> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.
> >>
> >> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit
> >> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.
> >
> > not sure why you're getting pissy.  but let's put some things straight
> > shall we.
> >
> > - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo.  i changed things of
> > course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style
> > problems, and did some things wrongly.
>
> You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell
> style.

that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only 
makes sense for something going into the tree.

> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad 
> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ 

looks/tested correct to me

> and removing important ewarn msgs to users?

must be some magical ewarn only you can see because both ebuilds have the same 
set of messages

> > - i'd been poking openrc on my system long before "this weekend".
>
> Great. And have you been working with the docs people or the arch teams
> and with the Gentoo/FreeBSD guys? Because some of your changes might
> work on your system, but not on other systems

assuming it breaks on every system but mine, it's not keyworded/unmasked.  so 
any problems are easily corrected for no penalty.

> > - only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort.  we have
> > e-mail addresses too last i checked.
>
> Refresh your mail client because I did send you e-mail. And as far as I
> know, Roy did too.

gmail says neither of you sent me an e-mail in the last month.  perhaps you 
should cite exact subjects/message-ids/dates.

> > - the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded.  nothing precludes you
> > from working on it.  or writing docs.  or doing anything else you're
> > talking about doing.
> > - and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in
> > the tree.  people test things then.
>
> It's called teamwork, Mike. It also looks awful suspicious when we don't
> hear a peep out of you about OpenRC until 1 day before I was going to
> add it to the tree. What would have been so hard about sending a follow
> up e-mail to the thread I started about getting OpenRC in the tree
> saying "Hey everyone, going to stick openrc-9999 in the tree now with
> some changes I feel should be made."

you're pissing over nothing.  i stated openly at a council meeting two weeks 
ago i was working on it.  so if you want to draw any random conclusions you 
like, i frankly dont care.  you can either continue to make a big stink over 
literally nothing, or continue on with what you've been doing.  have at it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>     
>>> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the
>>>>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch
>>>>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is
>>>>> available via the layman module "openrc".
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and
>>>>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the
>>>>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated
>>>>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns,
>>>>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the
>>>>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their
>>>>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very
>>>>> smooth transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1].
>>>>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will
>>>>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
>>>>>           
>>>> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger
>>>> <vapier@gentoo.org> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the
>>>> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and
>>>> committed it to the tree this weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm
>>>> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since
>>>> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my
>>>> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for
>>>> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him.
>>>>
>>>> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit
>>>> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped.
>>>>         
>>> not sure why you're getting pissy.  but let's put some things straight
>>> shall we.
>>>
>>> - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo.  i changed things of
>>> course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style
>>> problems, and did some things wrongly.
>>>       
>> You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell
>> style.
>>     
>
> that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only 
> makes sense for something going into the tree.
>
>   
>> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad 
>> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ 
>>     
>
> looks/tested correct to me
>   
breaks for anything with a module parameter
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]

On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad
> >> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/
> >
> > looks/tested correct to me
>
> breaks for anything with a module parameter

last i looked module parameters were not allowed.  but it's a good thing it's 
p.masked so we can fix it easily.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>     
>>> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>       
>>>> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad
>>>> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/
>>>>         
>>> looks/tested correct to me
>>>       
>> breaks for anything with a module parameter
>>     
>
> last i looked module parameters were not allowed.  but it's a good thing it's 
> p.masked so we can fix it easily.
> -mike
>   
/etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear 
after the module name.

/etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring 
variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters.

This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic 
conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc-9999 ebuild was 
something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module 
parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various 
/etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that 
does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've 
left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting it.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1196 bytes --]

On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear
> after the module name.
>
> /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring
> variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters.
>
> This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic
> conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc-9999 ebuild was
> something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module
> parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various
> /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that
> does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've
> left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting
> it.

expecting users to read and do it themselves is certainly a path to 
destruction for many.  while i could have written it in shell, i just did it 
in awk.  i hope you're just overstating things when you say months, because 
FIXED:INCVS.

we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for 
per-version-per-module arguments.  unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear
>> after the module name.
>>
>> /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring
>> variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters.
>>
>> This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic
>> conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc-9999 ebuild was
>> something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module
>> parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various
>> /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that
>> does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've
>> left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting
>> it.
> 
> expecting users to read and do it themselves is certainly a path to 
> destruction for many.  while i could have written it in shell, i just did it 
> in awk.  i hope you're just overstating things when you say months, because 
> FIXED:INCVS.
> 
> we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for 
> per-version-per-module arguments.  unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?
> -mike

Currently OpenRC does not support per-version-per-module arguments. What 
is your proposed syntax?

-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Roy Marples]

On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for
> per-version-per-module arguments.  unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?

It now supports per module per kernel version arguments.

Thanks

Roy
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 380 bytes --]

On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for
> > per-version-per-module arguments.  unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?
>
> It now supports per module per kernel version arguments.

thanks ... ebuild now prefers that form: modules_<mod>_args_<ver>=
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >> /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear
> >> after the module name.
> >>
> >> /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring
> >> variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters.
> >>
> >> This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic
> >> conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc-9999 ebuild was
> >> something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module
> >> parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various
> >> /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that
> >> does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've
> >> left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting
> >> it.
> >
> > expecting users to read and do it themselves is certainly a path to
> > destruction for many.  while i could have written it in shell, i just did
> > it in awk.  i hope you're just overstating things when you say months,
> > because FIXED:INCVS.
> >
> > we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for
> > per-version-per-module arguments.  unless openrc does that now ... Roy ?
>
> Currently OpenRC does not support per-version-per-module arguments. What
> is your proposed syntax?

i'd assume logically extended based on existing behavior.  Roy's done it now 
though.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
> All,
>
> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the 
> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch 
> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is 
> available via the layman module "openrc".
>
> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and 
> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates.
>
> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the 
> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated 
> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, 
> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the 
> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail.
>
> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their 
> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very 
> smooth transition.
>
> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. 
> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2].
>
> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will 
> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988
>
As a follow up for everyone. Mike and I have completed openrc-0.2 and 
baselayout-2.0.0 ebuilds. They're in the tree and ready for consumption. 
They are currently masked while we wait for all arches to match ~arch of 
current baselayout. Tracker bug for this is #214957 [1].

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214957

--
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list