From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JduEr-0000jS-U1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:29:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97CEAE0779; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EA1E0779 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5904066C5C; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:29:50 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: Doug Goldstein Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:32:24 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <47E1F3C4.5060907@gentoo.org> <200803241708.01550.vapier@gentoo.org> <47E81A1A.60803@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <47E81A1A.60803@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2695660.1XUbHWWKUp"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200803241732.25169.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 450e0453-3f9a-4a3a-ad89-fdfe8823d358 X-Archives-Hash: 96b3b866cab2cd29515710059528a0ab --nextPart2695660.1XUbHWWKUp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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=3D212696 > >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D213988 > >> > >> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger > >> 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 sin= ce > >> 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 h= it > >> 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 onl= y=20 makes sense for something going into the tree. > And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad=20 > conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/=20 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 s= ame=20 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=20 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= =20 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 week= s=20 ago i was working on it. so if you want to draw any random conclusions you= =20 like, i frankly dont care. you can either continue to make a big stink ove= r=20 literally nothing, or continue on with what you've been doing. have at it. =2Dmike --nextPart2695660.1XUbHWWKUp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUAR+gd6UFjO5/oN/WBAQK+ZRAA2fAoJe5ELJT8sGC+1AYT3oKihEmN8RyM 48HfK3sEC3/IQjEEdGMNWVJUs0xqcmwgpAdiS/6zy6dcG+y7CPXJL6DfPE380cIL EcytCjN+m2otHq/rYJeuyUEKWfnf9XkxEDeF/3tR/5nE5eGNbGfN5f8CiEk8sbMr oUHNGRANhm1I+69BdaXIRdDhz7cfzDO1BELrR3KlynQp9pvetMPakF4A5kaOtijS ZofmKMIi5VF7J8uB8Uf22IWabL7twO2tmOxyIZhfYJveZoSnRi7oGKlXSPKLVylX XttI2jZfSSBkPppbUHnX5GXBUoK3A1QeOJG8B83KX9s/9ZdLot4HTvdsWlX5hmFV ybuDCyhUkG3yeZd/im/oDpGZTNEfAPToC3oiuHOWiSaYsg2P8cvnBm1uE7Y5B2Dy Tcl60DTIWNt9LXIttUFtoJ23kOe/ykI8hAGjEO2ZA6lN7niZYCSgNKajYNIyrHmQ Rgk5guyatuFxulVvQ0rEC7FGTpd7srv6ec1OJU5Wm5gpwYKl9rhbCc48dIGH7Crc KnpKwV7u3qe5TTg8ZtvE5+PAmuqbIn9clSMkH+xSVBqCaonKRiVWQ+4NeJnJWbjZ r6V+cdY2KZxKLfO1NYxZIoYhRbhT7y0w9JpUweowj4lDAOHucckT/qFGqs6eOMJk 7LZ90Bl1NEk= =0/bq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2695660.1XUbHWWKUp-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list