From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
To: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:32:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200803241732.25169.vapier@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47E81A1A.60803@gentoo.org>
[-- 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 --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-24 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-20 5:19 [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo Doug Goldstein
2008-03-20 6:59 ` Josh Saddler
2008-03-20 12:12 ` Roy Marples
2008-03-20 14:16 ` Doug Goldstein
2008-03-20 14:34 ` Daniel Pielmeier
2008-03-20 20:13 ` [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] " Mike Frysinger
2008-03-24 20:26 ` [gentoo-dev] " Doug Goldstein
2008-03-24 20:35 ` Josh Saddler
2008-03-24 20:47 ` Doug Goldstein
2008-03-24 21:08 ` [gentoo-core] " Mike Frysinger
2008-03-24 21:16 ` Doug Goldstein
2008-03-24 21:32 ` Mike Frysinger [this message]
2008-03-24 21:36 ` Doug Goldstein
2008-03-24 21:42 ` Mike Frysinger
2008-03-24 21:53 ` Doug Goldstein
2008-03-24 22:03 ` Mike Frysinger
2008-03-24 23:49 ` Doug Goldstein
2008-03-25 12:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2008-03-25 8:33 ` Roy Marples
2008-03-25 12:29 ` Mike Frysinger
2008-03-27 14:57 ` Doug Goldstein
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200803241732.25169.vapier@gentoo.org \
--to=vapier@gentoo.org \
--cc=cardoe@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox