From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2C31381F3 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:07:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55386E0B7D; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from juliette.telenet-ops.be (juliette.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.74]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C872E0B3C for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:07:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by juliette.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id AK741m00r2khLEN06K74ij; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 21:07:04 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:03:23 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: alonbl@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8 Message-ID: <20130808210323.5e085a75@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: References: <5202416C.5@gentoo.org> <1375881254.7753.41.camel@rook> <5202DD20.8050906@gentoo.org> <5203A880.1050306@gentoo.org> <5203B190.80306@gentoo.org> <20130808172340.7d2424af@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5203C908.1000304@gentoo.org> <20130808185357.4208db83@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130808202627.4b474471@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/_y1hCEl4U/+xae8UBQ/lM3H"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 2381980c-ccd1-4c78-af75-c5b8bfd41262 X-Archives-Hash: 6243641e7729595f60a18eacf38fe5f1 --Sig_/_y1hCEl4U/+xae8UBQ/lM3H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:38:55 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > Not necessarily, one can opt to mask this combination and stabilize > > this combination later by removing the mask; it's an implementation > > detail, but certainly there's no need to imply that they must. > > > > Another example is that when you add a package to the tree, you are > > not required to initially commit both an OpenRC unit and systemd > > service file; you are suggested to provide them for the convenience > > of the user, if you don't know systemd service files then you > > aren't obligated to support them as far as I am aware of. There are > > people that can help you in supporting them as well as following up > > on their bugs; and if you wonder, the ebuild change to support a > > systemd service is trivial. >=20 > 1. There is huge difference between adding a new package that lacks > feature and maintaining existing features. True, that's why it's another example; as for my first paragraph, see the mail <20130808204701.3b419e58@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> I just send out titled "Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: ...)" which details that. (By the time of finishing this mail, it appears you've answered already) > 2. When people say that something is trivial, my immediate reaction is > fear. systemd is far from being trivial, but let's don't get into that > one again. systemd's triviality is irrelevant; this is an ebuild change, and I don't see what you have fear of. A good way to deal with fear, is risk analysis; in which of the following fields do you find to be a risk? 1. Known knowns. 2. Unknown knowns. 3. Known unknowns. 4. Unknown unknowns. For what reason do you think that a particular field has a huge risk? What do you anticipate happening? What is the risk worth fearing? > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 20:57:15 +0300 > > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > I appreciate the discussion at debian, it is not wise to support > > > [I am adding: at stable] more than one solution for layout. > > > > Can you share the link? I'm yet to see good reasoning why it's not > > wise. >=20 > Latest[1], you can search for "debian openrc" for more. >=20 > [1] > http://www.marshut.com/rnvrp/survey-answers-part-3-systemd-is-not-portabl= e-and-what-this-means-for-our-ports.html It not being portable indeed implies that it's not supportable on certain architectures, platforms and so on it can't be ported to; but that doesn't imply that we can't support more than one solution for the layout for architectures, platforms and so on where it does work. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/_y1hCEl4U/+xae8UBQ/lM3H Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSA+t7AAoJEJWyH81tNOV9dU8H/3VpxtseDJBoLnNaq8ZKCdsy Il3xTKrfRbb6bsd+WoDgT30hby+g+EyyeQir7BSkMLnDLZSzlXZWvTvpy9Bu4vjT SdQfJSENxOkatCIuDn0/0Jj+sZZ9CIeitztUN5h9uf6N8E3gud9dYWZoxahMp73W oezVgvH+Evu/R2lGi9XfMwGHvwESllW/AJsqnR1yFFF3hZS0SHYGFJoQWWCMj/1O EkuVby1M3862JDyrDoS5PIu3aR72xx6q9cNbOsNrXawf7TTLaMs7MUkJZG2AlTkf ScHpKiYVPBzsU8dq0jySm3SKcVsSIhQDbOaEz4LI5xgyIuIA9yzMts1x73I3RzI= =763Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/_y1hCEl4U/+xae8UBQ/lM3H--