From: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:16:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47E81A1A.60803@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200803241708.01550.vapier@gentoo.org>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-24 21:17 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 [this message]
2008-03-24 21:32 ` Mike Frysinger
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=47E81A1A.60803@gentoo.org \
--to=cardoe@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=vapier@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